Why haven't you joined the botnet?

Well I for one welcome our new corporate overlords.

Can't block ads properly and can't gaurentee being able to stop advertising scripts and shit.

>>19613497
>>19613501
Must block dem harmless javascripts

because it's not, OP

it is not

>Implying that I didn't.

Tried to. No downthemall extension and stupid download bar popup so I went back to firefox.

>>19613511
>harmless javascripts

Used it for a while.
Having all those processes bugged me.
It was pretty light-weight too.
I'm using Firefox right now, I like Opera and switch between the two but Firefox is my current default as it's generally faster and has better extension support.

>>19613559
Yes harmless javascripts

>>19613477
>Why haven't you joined the master race?

when i cant even choose where the interface buttons should appear, and when I cant get the same level of customisation of security and page data
then i say its a browser for the hard of thinking and will stick to a real mans browser, Firefox

>>19613477
>implying I havent

>>19613477
No matter how "fast" it is, Chrome will always be shit until it receives a proper addon/extension system, implements proper advanced options in the configuration GUI, and allows complete customization of the UI. The only time that Chrome was actually worth using was back during the Firefox 3.x days, but now Firefox and other browsers aren't horrendously slow. Chrome is what IE would be if it were less shitty.

>>19613609
But Chrome is pretty much what IE9 is now.

I actually just uninstalled Firefox for Chrome.

Chrome looks nice out the box, I had to use about 5 userstyles to make Firefox look like Chrome... otherwise it looks pretty turd.

Also Google Sync is good, u mad Google has my passwords?

not even fucking close to a bot net you faggots

>>19613609

There's nothing wrong with the UI. What addons does everyone need for Chrome that only FF has?

Why are you so stupid?

>>19613707
a working adblock for starters

>>19613720
>implying ours doesn't work
haven't seen an ad in months

>>19613720
Yeah it's a shame there is no adblock for Chrome.

....Oh wait, there is, go fuck yourself.

>>19613726
It only hides them. It doesnt block them, which means their javascript can still run, which defeats the purpose of blocking them

>>19613752

No one gives a fuck. They block them so as not to look at them Chrome does this.

Is this really that hard?

>>19613752
It blocks most of them

I need my noscript and a proper adblock, also I'm not poor so I have more than 1gb of ram so I don't care about 20-50 ram less on chrome

>>19613752
"Oh my god there is an ad in the background which I CAN'T FUCKING SEE, I wonder what's going to happen now"

You're a moron.

>>19613624

Funnily enough, I just uninstalled Chrome for Firefox Nightly.

Does everything I swapped to Chrome for, I know it's not a botnet, and I get almost all of my favourite add-ons back. Plus really frequent updates.

>>19613477

>No features
>Can't customize UI
>Blatant privacy issues
>Poor extensions API results in shitty extensions
>All browsers load pages within milliseconds

0/100
>

>>19613770

Enjoy your wasted bandwidth and ad tracking.

>>19613781
>No features
It's a browser. It browses the Internet. Why doesn't it have any features?
>Can't customize UI
You can.
>Blatant privacy issues
Such as?
>Poor extensions API results in shitty extensions
I have an adblocker, automatic mail notifiers, smooth scroll, Stylish, and a few userscripts. All work fine.
>All browsers load pages within milliseconds
No, they do not.

>>19613791

Been enjoying it for years. Enjoy your slow, bloated, and pointless browser.

>>19613791
>wasted bandwith
>2011

Where the fuck do you live?

>>19613657

>Using Google's opinion on themselves

I hope you're not always this stupid. Packet capturing has revealed Botnet frequently phones home for reasons not on that list.

>>19613811
Source?

>>19613811
>Google's opinion
>Google is wikipedia

Master race reporting in.

Multiple times i tried switching to chrome
each time i didn't see how it was better than FF
also i'm paranoid as fuck, since chrome is made by google, and they're pretty major.

>>19613801

>Desperation attempt

Nightly uses less memory than Chrome. Enjoy your featureless and bloated botnet.

>>19613823

And what of all these /g/tards with their Android devices? "Botnet" much?

>>19613817

>implying that's not a copy and paste from Google's privacy policy page.

I'm not surprised. Only an idiot (as you continue to prove with your posts) like yourself would support a botnet.

I have. Switched to Chrome after about 6 years of being a FF user.

>>19613842

trolololo

>>19613826
>call others desperate
>ignore the argument and respond with a butthurt image
>tumblr

>>19613832
>/g/tard

>>19613826

>repeating an argument enough times makes it right

Chrome is eating FF's market-share for breakfast. You're fighting a losing battle. The sad part is why you are losing has already been pointed out to you.

>>19613840
What I still don't understand is why do you call me an idiot and why haven't anyone answered why is Chrome a botnet.

Because I don't like shitty browsers.

>Master race

1/10 for effort.

>>19613854
>market share

>>19613854

>irrelevant information and no rebuttal

Winners never quit, and quitters never win.

I win. You lose.

>>19613871

>upset FF user

>>19613874

>I win

Okay, Chuck.

>implying there isn't a reason why Chrome is destroying the competition

>>19613707
>There's nothing wrong with the UI.
This is what Chromefags actually believe.

>>19613904
Shiny!

But I did, I am using opera.

But if you are asking why i don't use chrome as main browser - no features, no options, no preferences

let me know when I can use mouse gestures on speed dial page, when I can use bookmarks keyword/nicknames, when I can select which file extensions will be directly downloaded somewhere else than default DL folder, when I can have some fucking freedom with the interface buttons, when I can have tabs on the right side, ...

>>19613911
Well then, wise and intelligent Firefox Master Race user, what is wrong with the UI?

>>19613911
Actually, I like the UI quite a bit. It's pretty similar to how I had FF setup before I switched.

>>19613904
>
>>implying there isn't a reason why Chrome is destroying the competition

Because Google puts ads on Google.com, Youtube.com, and pays popular software venders to fuck up installers and add "INSTALL CHROME". That's it.

Botnet is objectively shit. This has been proven.

The number one reason to switch to Chrome: Firefox doesn't have a single addon that competes with Gmail Checker Plus.

>>19613846

I wouldn't call that a trololol. I did the same. My browsing experience wasn't quite the same after I did though. Switched back after trying Nightly.

>>19613920
>Well then, wise and intelligent Firefox Master Race user, what is wrong with the UI?
The. Only. Piece. That. I. Can. Move. Is. The. Home. Button. Oh, and I can choose whether or not to show the bookmarks bar. Wow!

Installed chromium a couple days ago to try it out, worked pretty well, but 4chan X and the gestures plugin i tried has little caveats, and the browser didn't use any less resources than firefox, so i removed it.

not enough reason to switch for me.

any features I should be made aware of?

>>19613948

>chrome
>features

-5/10

>>19613917
That memory hog bloated piece of shit. You call that a master race?

>>19613938
>Firefox doesn't have a single addon that competes with Gmail Checker Plus.
I have something better. It's called an email client.

>>19613938
>Gmail
I prefer Thunderbird for that kind of stuff

>>19613946
So... the problem with Chrome's customization is that you can't put the forward and backward buttons on the right side? Makes perfect fucking sense.

>>19613960
I prefer gmail's browser client to any standalone email client.

>>19613925

>>19613970

LOL

>>19613925

To back up your argument, Google has ads for Chrome everywhere. Recently, it was plastered all over the train stations in Melbourne, and had advertisements all over the damn city. Then, as you said, there's Google's massive advertising potential created their own websites that are used in every country with internet. Not to mention they run an ad service of sorts, so they can plant Chrome ads in there on any website that is using those adverts to gain revenue.

use chrome
use google toolbar
use google's public DNS

feel google doesnt have enough info on you yet so sign up for google+

>>19613925
>>19613970
>>19613980
>>19613985

Samefagging it up in here.

>>19613956
1. Firefox for ages eat up shitload of memory. Chrome go try test it, it eats more because it needs to run more stuff when each tab is different process.

2. who the fuck cares about RAM anyway? Go buy additional 4GB for $25 nigger

Nightly and google+ master race here!

>>19613925
>>19613970

Odd, Microsoft is an even bigger company and has their browser on every Windows computer and they are losing market share. Are you sure it isn't just because Firefox is an inferior product?

With chrome Sync, is there some way to choose which computer's chrome install is the "master", so that instead of merging other, older chrome installs with the new one when syncing, it uses the specified one and overwrites any other install when syncing?

>>19614030
IE comes with every Windows machine

but that doesn't mean people won't install chrome right afterwards

that and it also runs on mac os and linux (and pretty much everything else)

>>19614030
Of course their browser is on every windows computer.
Just what would you do if IE wasn't installed on your windows computer?

Bad customization, HUEG bookmark bar, adblocking doesn't work properly, CSS sometimes fucks up.

>>19614012

>2011
>Not knowing how to check for samefag
>mfw

>>19614043
Just like Firefox

>>19614047
that feel when you don't need a browser (or even a gui) to install a browser in linux

>>19614050
Adblocking does work properly.

>>19614052
exactly, being the default doesn't make you the best

>>19614051
urchan legend
there is no check for samefag or post screenshot

>>19614054
But you need one in Windows.
Why wouldn't they include their own browser?
I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 8 came with Microsoft Security Essentials

>>19614055

0/10

>>19614030

see:

>>19613970
>>19613985

>>19614061

Right. So why is Firefox losing?

>>19614035
Try this.

>>19614055
Depends on how you view it, actually. Neckbeards complain about Adblock Plus only hiding the apps, and not blocking them before opening the page. Of course, that makes no fucking difference and you don't see the ads anyways.

>>19614030

You also have to take into account that it has been renowned as the worst available internet browser for quite a while now. Even though the technologically illiterate Joe wouldn't know that himself, nearly everyone knows someone who's heard of it's reputation. Of course, the latest rendition of IE supposedly isn't that bad, but it's going to take a while for it to regain its credibility as a browser.

>>19614082
Fuck, wrong screenshot.

>>19614055
Not on video ads it doesn't.

>>19614084

So why is Firefox losing?

>>19614082

Enjoy your wasted bandwidth, slower page load times, comparative malicious exploit vulnerability, and ad tracking.

Oh and video ads.

>>19614079
Because Chrome has a large advertising company behind it?

Lovely colors but I am not gay enough to use Chrome.

Firefox 7 beta FTW

>>19614091

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

>>19614082
But it has ACTUALLY blocked ads for a very long time. Yes, there was a time when it hid ads once. That time is long, long gone.

>>19614079
advertising, bundle with software, being fast simple lightweight for idiots is better than being something more

>>19614099
85 Mb/s broadband, pages load fast as holy hellfire, no vulnerabilities whatsoever, the browser never crashed, deleting private data every time I close the browser, dynamic IP address.

COME

THE

FUCK

AT

ME

>>19614112

Untrue. Check the latest reviews on Botnet's shitty "adhide" extension.

"HALP WHY DO VIDEO AD BLOCK NO WORK???"

"HOW DO I REMOVE VIDEO ADS REALLY ANNOYING? THX"

>>19614121

0/10

>>>/b/

>>19614123
How is that at all relevant to what I said? It doesn't do anything with some video ads, but the ads that it does block, it actually blocks. Though I know it does have some problems with video ads, I have never once encountered a video ad using Chrome and Adblock.

>>19614123
>install adblock
>5 months later forget about even installing it
>just realize that I've never seen a single ad, youtube ad, and whatsoever

>>19614127
-10/10

>>>/soc/

>>19614135

>I have never once encountered a video ad using Chrome and Adblock.

LOL. Chrome user here and I get them all the time.

>>19614101

That changes nothing about the product itself.

>>19614111

>question remains unanswered

>>19614147
What extensions do you use?

>>19614139
>5 months later forget about even installing it
>5 months later
>5 months

Can Chrome block flash ads yet?

>>19614147
I was just looking through my extensions, and I think it's because I have "yousable youtube fix for chrome" installed, which does get rid of youtube ads. And who watches videos on other sites, seriously.

>>19614139
Blip. That is all.

>>19614148
>That changes nothing about the product itself.
That's my point.

>>19614139

>a terabyte of wasted "adhide" data
>personal information used for data mining

Filtered with "shit".

>>19614158

No. It can't even block html ads.

>>19614148

The product is shit. It's popular because it's advertised with millions of dollars. Your logic. It's missing.

Seriously, 99% of the problem is that shitty Chrome adblockers actually are still around.

>2011
>Not using Adblock Plus for Chrome.

https://adblockplus.org/en/chrome

>>19614179
Yes, it CAN block ads.

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/2010-April/193706.html
The necessary hooks were added in april of 2010.

>>19614091

Advertising. Technologically illiterate Joe isn't going to 'shop around' before choosing an internet browser. He's going to believe what the ads tell him. When there's the logo appearing EVERYWHERE all the time, he's eventually going to look into this 'Chrome nonsense'. He sees words like "immediately", "lightning speed", "fast", "quickly", etc. and so he goes and downloads it, under the assumption it'll speed up his internet.

We aren't in an age, yet, where basic computer skills are common knowledge. Computers are still foreign to a lot of people. Those people are going to believe what they're told, because what do they know?

So when it comes to choosing their browser, which is going to win? The browser with ads everywhere, telling you in the most basic terminology that their browser is better? Or the browser with no 'official' advertising presence?

>>19613477
>master race
Been part of it since 2003

I switched to Chrome during the FF 3.6 time because that one was fucking trash.

Then FF 4 came out and I came back and never looked back.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35897#c63

>closed: May 31

>>19614185
>>19614188

>http://adblockplus.org/en/known-issues-chrome

>Adblock Plus doesn't block in-video ads, background images, XMLHttpRequests (70% of all ads)

>Cause: Google Chrome currently doesn't allow blocking any of these request types

>Solution: None.


>2011
>Using a shitty botnet tracker with no features.

Botnet fag status:
[ ]TOLD
[ ]FUCKING TOLD
[ ]NO COUNTRY FOR TOLD MEN
[X ]You're beyond help.

>>19614247
>Botnet fag status:
Oh, botnet is bullshit, sure. The other Adblockers are worse though. At least Adblock Plus for Chrome doesn't break shit constantly like Adblock. Honestly, though, what do you expect from the owner of YouTube?

>>19614203
>not using Nightly

>>19614283

But I am, now. I switched to Nightly shortly before FF 5 came out.

Firefox URL bar is the best thing about it...

Chrome lacks little things

>>19614247

Rofl. How shitty.

>>19614279

Yeah. I was going to say, do you really expect Google to try and go fixing a lack of functionality in an extension that blocks all their ads? They get money from those things.

Install Nightly.

>>19614307
No, but they use WebKit, which is supported by entities other than google, and so far, google hasn't ever taken a feature out of webkit because of protecting their interests for chrome.

>>19614247
Reason to not use Chrome.

Seriously... why would Google ever allow proper ad blocking? They are an ad based company

>>19614331
Because they don't control Webkit.

Firefox's new update cycle is fucking retarded.

Every 6 weeks now they release a major version update with almost no improvements, that breaks half my add-ons.

>>19614380
Using Nightly 9.0.
No extensions broken.
Also, much better than stable.

>>19614293
>Chrome lacks little things
And some big things. Chrome is good for what it is. I do not believe that it is a browser targeted at enthusiasts though. It is simple and fast with a "safer" extension system that unfortunately also more limited.

>>19614335
>Because they don't control Webkit.
That, and the fact that its being open would cause alternative fixed versions to surpass the "official" version in popularity. Also, Google is a data mining company. Your searches are profitable for them, adblock or no.

>>19614380
>Every 6 weeks now they release a major version update with almost no improvements
There are improvements and that is not Mozilla's fault. Learn to edit about:config or install the compatibility checker.

Opinions on the new tab page? Nothing on firefox would compare to this well enough for me, but now they've changed it. I like it. The minimise and maximise apps vs most visited thing was retarded.

>>19614380

I find that, typically, all my add-ons update themselves to be compatible again within the week. But, of course, it is a bit of an inconvenience, I agree. I believe you can disable compatibility checking on add-ons though, if you think it's too much of a bother? I remember hearing you can change it in the about:config
A quick Google search could answer that though, I'm sure.

>>19614404
Just use speed dial.

>>19614247

/thread

>>19613477
Enjoy terrorists spying on you!

>>19614404
>Opinions on the new tab page?
I've always hated Chrome's new tab page. I always liked Speed Dial (Well, the Firefox equivalent) better.

>>19614434
except firefox don't have speeddial without extension, same as chrome...

>>19614434
One of the big things preventing me from switching to Chrome from FF was how shitty chrome's speed dial addon was in comparison. Luckily, they got "speeddial 2" which is fucking fantastic.

>>19614444

>>19614444
>best replaced with OPERA
What is nothing?

>>19614444
Chrome doesn't need an extension for that.

>>19614460
>What is nothing?

That's a pretty harsh way to describe Chrome.

>>19614500
>doesn't need an extension

Travesty! Everything needs to be an extension.

Opera master race reporting in.

>>19614500

But Chrome's extension-less speed dial sucks all kinds of dick.

>>19614500
right, right...
if you want to lack any control about it and have xhamster on your speeddial or bother with fucking incognito mode... or pining like retard.

compare it to speeddial 2 extension...

>>19614507
Even if you're trolling, you're right. Everything needs to be a proper extension so that I could customize my browser in any way I want.

>>19614541
I used opera for ages before I noticed it has mail client and synchronization and notes and all kind of shit... just because you have option to do something if you go two menus deep, does not mean it somehow hurt you when you don't use it nigger

>>19614519
brofist

>>19614565
Yeah, no.

>use Chrome for the first time in a few months
>want to install some new extensions
>suddenly Chrome web store

What the blueberry fuckmuffins is this shit?

>>19614404
Is this an extension or or the default new tab page that comes with the newer version?

Oh, last time I used chrome there was ad for angry birds directly on speeddial page.

I mean shit.. thats too far and it only get worse

>>19614656
Don't you like Angry Birds? Install it and START PLAYING FAGGOT.

>>19614247

And this is why Chrome is a bad browser.

tabs on top
sucks ass
literally the only reason

>>19614692
>using up less screen space
>sucks ass

>>19614051
>he thinks that actually works
summerfriend detected

>>19614631
It's been in the canary build for a week or two now. I wouldn't try that though, it's unstable and slow compared to beta. The angry birds message is gone now though. I hope google+ games comes to android, seeing my face on the high scores is badass.

>>19614700
its actually a pain in the ass because im used to writing off that area anyway
when chrome is the only program that does that its really fucking distracting
also its like a twentieth of my screen space

>>19614700
>sihthead don't have widescreen LCD or don't see how wasted the horizontal space is

>>19614692
chrome can have tabs on side, but it sucks and can be only on left side

>>19614732
>mfw bot opera and IE9 use up the same amount of space, maybe 5 pixels more
>saying "using less space is bad because I'm used to ie6 2.0" is a valid argument
Are you retarded or just seriously misguided?

>>19614743
Tabs on side is shit, period. Deal with it.

>>19614773
what the hell is everyones problem?
i dont like tabs on the top
dont want to use it
end of story

>>19614743
:3c
>>19614777
that's just like your opinion, man

>>19614797
chrome can use them on the side
>not browsing in full screen and using keyboard to change tabs
Summer

>>19614825
>not browsing one-handed

>>19614854
>needing both hands to use the keyboard you some kind of paraplegic?

jesus fucking christ what is everyones problem?
ive got like three or four windows open and each one has like a couple dozen tabs open
keyboard shortcuts are fucking inefficient its faster to just click with my mouse
putting the tabs on top adds more travel distance to click on a different one
ive got more than enough vertical room
fuck you guys

>>19614866
>keyboard shortcuts are fucking inefficient
I'm sorry I didn't realize you were retarded

>>19614884
either ive got to flip through them all or ive got to remember what number each tab is
fuck that shit

>>19614901
How many fucking tabs do you have open? Jesus fuck, hell, even a quick glance will tell you which tab number you want

>2011
>keeping your left hand on the keyboard rather than lazily leaning back and only using the mouse

>>19614917
couple dozen
enough that they often scroll off the left side

>>19614930
also this
my keyboard is usually out of reach and i dont want to leave it on my lap all the time

>>19614942
I can see no valid reason to have that many tabs unless you're a hoarder or you just open a tab and forget about it. If it's the latter case then your talking about inefficiency is laughable

>>19614813
jesus fuck, hide that menu bar

>>19614813
>>19614743

The funny thing is, you're still using more vertical space than chrome does

>>19614960
Why? I use it.

>>19614956
i save things to read later
i dont like managing temporary bookmarks
the tabs change often theyre not always the same

>>19614977
And I'm also doing more multitasking than any Chrome user.

There's more to a browser than how much vertical space it takes up, silly goose.

>>19614983
You don't just put them in their own window so you're not cluttering your screen in the meantime?

>>19614956
I can have easily opened 30+ tabs, usually under 40 since I start to clear shit when they start to get to the bottom of the screen(tabs on a side).

Easy example is if I see some topic in /r/buildapc and looking to build some rigg for some random guy.

you open his links of components, you newegg some shit you know is good, you are looking for combos and shit, you are googling several reviews open, and all the while you have your normal /g/ facebook, reddit, youtube, grooveshark, already opened in the first place...

>>19614917
70+

>>19615005
multiple windows yeah
lately ive been more prone to opening new windows but then i end up with a dozen

also like i said before my keyboard isnt usually in reach
like im on a couch and the keyboard only comes up when i need to type

>>19615005
Not him, but I do it because I believe that the technology is there to serve my needs, not vice versa.
If a design requires me to change my work flow for no gain, that design is a failure in that respect.

>>19614995
I'm curious as to what multitasking you're doing that I can't
>>19615023
Does firefox not allow you to drag a tab into another window? That alone would seriously put me off it

>>19615041
>Does firefox not allow you to drag a tab into another window? That alone would seriously put me off it

It does since version 4.

>>19615041
uh yeah i can do that

the main point in my opinion though is this
>>19615037
i just think its really fucking bullshit that theres apparently one right way and im supposed to change the way i do shit to fit
i still dont understand why they dont include an option to stick the tabs in the middle even if it was some strange out of the way thing

>>19615037
I'm still not following you.
Chrome supports tabs on the side, it's not getting in your way, the idea of having huge numbers of tabs open is something that I personally think is stupid except under certain circumstances (the newegg example was a good one)
I'm still waiting on what "multitasking" I'll be allowed to do with firefox that I have been here by oblivious to

>>19615093
look
im going to lay it out really simple
its not multitasking at least for me
first
i dont see any difference in performance between chrome and firefox
my connection is slow enough theyre about the same
second
i dont like using keyboard shortcuts
my keyboard is usually way the fuck over there
this is because its not comfortable to keep it right in front of me all the time
third
i dont need the extra vertical real estate
fourth
i dont like moving my mouse further
just as for some people the extra space is important and beneficial despite being actually a fairly small difference
so too is the difference in movement distance a pain in the ass for me
fifth
the fact that theres no option to change it is indicative of an asshole tendency of google to say that theres one right way to do it and youre doing it dammit
tabs on top is not literally the only reason
its a bunch of small irritating things that are a result of google apparently following some sort of kiss philosophy
usually sure its good to fight bloat but in this case its resulting in legitimate useful features being scrapped
also the stuff about theres one right way just pisses me off
fuck that shit

see
there

>>19615187
the summer is at the end
winter is coming

Just use what you want and stop shoving it down other people's throats

>>19615226
dude its not even september

>>19614121
Bennet, it's time for bed.

>>19615187
>i dont see any difference in performance between chrome and firefox
>my connection is slow enough theyre about the same
There is more to speed and performance than your connection. firefox takes far, far longer than chrome to start up initially. chrome sandboxes every tab and addon, you'll never see chrome crash, you'll see a tab crash, or an addon crash, but never chrome (well technically it can But I've never seen it and I've never seen anyone mention it on 4chan or any other forum). It's hard to dick up chrome with your own stupidity.
>i dont like using keyboard shortcuts
You don't have to. Chrome isn't even designed around them. It's just faster, in the same way learning ctrl-c ctrl-v is faster.
>my keyboard is usually way the fuck over there. this is because its not comfortable to keep it right in front of me all the time
The fuckdo you not use a desk or not have a keyboard with some section for resting your arms? Every keyboard has come with something like that since the late 90s
>i dont need the extra vertical real estate
That doesn't magic it away as being a nice addition.
>i dont like moving my mouse further
Chrome supports side tabs. I've said this a dozen times.
>the fact that theres no option to change it is indicative of an asshole tendency of google to say that theres one right way to do it and youre doing it dammit
Just because you have superdown syndrom doesn't mean the option isn't there
>its a bunch of small irritating things that are a result of google apparently following some sort of kiss philosophy
wat
>usually sure its good to fight bloat but in this case its resulting in legitimate useful features being scrapped
Such as?
>also the stuff about theres one right way just pisses me off
That's just you taking trolling seriously. You're free to use side tabs in chrome.
>>19615243
>discussing technology on a technolgy board
The nerve

>>19615296
>The fuckdo you not use a desk or not have a keyboard with some section for resting your arms? Every keyboard has come with something like that since the late 90s
no desk
im on a couch
keyboard is on my lap
>side tabs
fuck side tabs
why the hell can you have side tabs and not have tabs in the middle
fucking bullshit

>>19615347
wat
Enjoy your future back problems, I guess

>>19615365
seriously the only time its uncomfortable is when i leave the keyboard on my lap for a while when im not typing
and thats only a little irritating but enough that i dont like keyboard shortcuts

>>19615365
you guess wrong. Unless he is spending 20 hours on that couch and having his muscles atrophy, his back is under lesser stress than mine or yours or some other douche who is sitting on the chair

>>19615383
Bad back problems often come from the most comfortable postions due to
>>19615396
Slouching. Which is what you are almost certainly doing on a couch and far more severely than in a chair.

>>19615296
>It's faster without using keyboard shortcuts....like using keyboard shortcuts.
Care to talk out of your arse some more?

>>19615432
dude im not slouching im lounging
the pressure is mostly on my shoulder blades
seriously this whole setup is pretty nonstandard its not like im just sitting on my couch like a chair
its more like a bed with a raised back

>>19615455
>how do I rad hurr durr durr im so returded
Fuck.
I'll reiterate.
It's not designed around keyboard shotcuts. They're (shortcuts) are simply faster

>>19615478
the reason i dismissed keyboard shortcuts is i mentioned its a pain because i use the mouse to click the tabs
tabs on tab makes the tab bar farther away and is irritating
someone said i should just use keyboard shortcuts and ive been saying that its a pain
tabs on side sounds kind of cool
except apparently its left side only not right
so ill reiterate
fuck arbitrary ui restrictions on things that have totally legitimate reasons to be changed
fuck there being one right way to do things
fuck tabs on top

>>19615476
On your computer? That sound horrendously awkward to use the mous/keyboard unless it's a laptop, which I'm guessing it isn't

>>19615478
Clicking to do stuff has never been a faster way to do anything. That's why keyboard shortcuts are still so prominent today, despite all the fancy gui shit we've got computers doing now.

Additionally, things like a marginally faster cold-load time mean virtually nothing unless you're on very outdated hardware. Picking a browser based on something like that (as opposed to ease of use) is stupid. It's almost irrelevant to even bring it up as a selling point.

>>19615511
Tabs on top is fucking annoying. Particularly if you use a multi monitor setup where you drag browser windows around or to the top/side of the screen to maximise/dock them.

the arbitrary UI lock-in annoys the fuck out of me too.

>>19615511
Oh for christs sake
>tabs on top makes it further away
>I'll only use tabs on side if it's the right side
You get the irony of that statement right?
In fact, unless you're using a 4:3, 5:4 or 1:1 screen, tabs on the right is FARTHER than tabs on top. Unless you use the scroll bar manually for some fucked up reason
Now you're just talking out your ass
>>19615528
That's what I'm saying.
If you'd like to repeat it some more feel free. It won't make it any less what I said.
Firefox takes 2-3 seconds to load on my i5, gtx 570, 4gb ram computer. Chrome takes less than a second. "virtually nothing" is virtually bullshit

>>19615564
my mouse is usually somewhere in the middle of the page
tabs in the middle and tabs on the right have it border the content
tabs on the left would break things up with the stuff i usually have on the left
also im not sure if id even use tabs on the side it sounds like it takes up a bunch of room for no reason

>>19615593
What exactly is tabs in the middle? That's one I'm not familiar with myself. Can you post a screenshot?

>>19615564
>Firefox takes 2-3 seconds to load on my i5, gtx 570, 4gb ram computer
Something's wrong with your computer bro, or you're using an ancient version of FF

I use Chromium.
All the benefits, no botnet.
inb4 its a slightly subtler botnet.

Chrome has some really annoying gripes

Eg, I can't just type into the URL bar to Google.

If I've ever typed anything similar it will add on extra words, so retarded

Like earlier, I typed "Firefox Sync" into the bar.... then just now I type in "Firefox" and hit enter and notice it decided to add "Sync" to the end

Ergh

>>19615656
How do you get Chromium?

>>19615645
Firefox 4. I know it's an older version but not that old, that's a ridiculous load time for anything made after 2000.
Maybe 5 or 6 will be better, downloading now. Computers fine
>>19615669
>I can't just type into the URL bar to Google.
You're fucking retarded, son
>If I've ever typed anything similar it will add on extra words
It will suggest and add that suggestion if you press enter straight away, like any preemptive type. And it can be turned off I believe. If you don't want to turn it off for any reason you can just press space after you typed before enter

browsing porn with voice on in opera is awesome bros

is there any other browsers that provide the same too? if so,i'll instantly switch to it

>>19615705
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

>>19615833
He asked for chromium, not Canned Bloat, silly

>>19615855
It's only "canned bloat" when your computer is too shitty to use it. It's not our fault that you don't have a decent amount of RAM.

Enjoying my blazing fast browsing on Nightly right here.

>>19615705
For Ubuntu: its on the Ubuntu Software Centre
Windows: http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/snapshots/Win/
Scroll to the bottom, open the bottom from last, choose mini-installer.exe

>>19615880
>hurr durr it's justified when you pay extra for it
I have plenty of ram, and it goes into my browsers security instead of whatever firebloat wastes it on
>any firefox derivative
>blazing fast
I lol'd

>>19615855
http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Portable-Google-Chrome-Chromium-Download-108363.html

>>19615887
You can say what you want and stay as blind as you want, but I came from Chrome. I'm sorry that you're too poor to have at least 4GB of RAM. (Nightly only takes up 100MB.)

>>19615901
>mfw he thinks chrome uses less ram than firefox
You've basically just confirmed your a liar
>(Nightly only takes up 100MB.)
>I don't understand how browsers and ram works

>>19615894
That's the portable version, he needs the one from build.chromium.org

>>19615912
I'm not sure what you did wrong, but Chrome has always been under 100MB for me.

>>19613477
I love how when Firefox gets its' act together and incorporates a separate process for each tab; THEN it'll be the true "master race".

I use Firefox (can't live without the addons) and find I can fit more icons on the bookmarks bar than on Chromium.

I coded my own noob Chromium updater to pull and unzip the latest version from the download site, but I've hardly ever used Chromium since.

>>19615926
That's where my
>I don't understand how browsers and ram works
Comment comes into play.
It depends on tabs and addons. Chrome uses more than firefox because it seperates each tab and addon as a seperate process, meaning one crashing won't bring down the others invariably increasing ram usage. As far as I'm aware firefox only sandboxes addons still, so how it uses up as much memory as it does is beyond me

>>19615949
And you can always add --single-process which will get rid of that.

>>19615938
>and find I can fit more icons on the bookmarks bar than on Chromium.

That's one of the most trivial pieces of anecdotal information I have ever heard.

>>19615971
I don't see why you'd want to though, unless you're using an old netbook

>>19615949
I don't care about tabs and addons. I'm not a hardcore multitasker fag with tons of addons like you guys.

I just browse.

>>19615983
That's some of the most hurr durr I've never read.
>I don't care about stability I just browse
Hur

>>19615983
>I just browse.

GTFO plebe.

>>19615993
How does stability come into play when no problems occur? Please enlighten me oh wise one. The one who foresees the crashes.

>>19616004
>>gets told
lolno

>>19616007
Oh wow, you're getting dumber and dumber with every comment

>>19615974
Aye, but strangely it its' one of the many things that niggles me about Chrome/Chromium.

As is this. Have they fixed this yet?

>>19616013
At least I gave a valid argument. Nightly never crashes on me, ever. Therefore, I shouldn't have to worry about things like "stability". Everything runs just fine, thank you.

>>19615983
>arguing about browsing
>gets told
>OH MY GOD IM NOT EVEN INTERSTED IN BROWSERS NECKBEARDS
Really? You're on /g/

>>19616018
>Have they fixed this yet?

I would attempt to answer, but I have no idea what you are talking about...

>>19616022
That's not a valid argument. Not at all.
>it never happened to me it never happens
the point is when it DOES happen, you fanboy

>>19616036
That's like caring about how the Sun is one day going to explode. Too bad it's not going to happen in our life time.

The day this thing crashes, I'll go back to Chrome and personally make a thread.

Nightly will crash occasionally, but so will Chrome.

Wait, this is SOFTWARE we're talking about, right guize?

>>19616042
>when this alpha software crashes, I'll come back

See you in 2 hours.

>>19616042
Your retard is showing.
Just stop, please. You're embarrassing yourself.
>the chance that software will crash is the same as the sun dying
Christ you're a moron. Chrome crashes too, obviously, but far, far less

>>19616035
Does Chrome/Chromium have the functionality depicted in the picture?

As in; can you hookup a search engine with a keyword, so if I want to search "dongs" on Wikipedia I can just type:
>w dongs
If I want to search "dongs" on Bing I type:
>b dongs
etc.

Btw this has just reminded me I need one for Amazon...

>>19616058
You take things way too literal brother. You should take a break from the computer sometimes and find some peace. I never claimed that the chances of Nightly crashing were the same as the sun dying. I'm just saying, I see no reason for it to crash as long as I browse ordinarily.

>>19616063
I think there is a way of doing that with the url bar, yes. Sorry I can't be more help but at least knowing it's an option will make it easier to search for

>>19616065
>I see no reason for it to crash as long as I browse ordinarily.
And that's why I'm finding it hard to think of you as anything other than an idiotic fanboy

>>19616063
Yes, Chrome can do that.

If I want to look for a movie on warez-bb.com I just type "wbb TITLE" in the url bar

>>19616071
How can I be a fanboy when I've used nearly every browser in the book and came from CHROME to Nightly? Now you're just grasping here.

Let me rephrase my comment about the sun, because you were obviously so confused.

The sun will die one day. Sad but true. This is unstoppable and WILL happen, but I don't see anyone being bothered about it.

I look at a browser crash the same way. Sure, it'll happen some day, but who cares if it does. The thing looks pretty darn stable to me. If it doesn't do anything weird within a few weeks, that's enough stability for me.

>>19616058

Chrome crashed for me quite often with "This page cannot be displayed" and some face.

One of the (many) reasons why it no longer remains on my compuuter.

>>19615656

>Still no features
>Still can't customize UI
>Still can't block ads
>Still has poor extensions API

Enjoy.

Also thread has been over:

>>19614247
>>19614247
>>19614247
>>19614247

Chrome: Botnet
Firefox: Bloat-ons coded by children
Oh, /g/. You always know how to make me laugh.