Enjoy your botnet.

>>21465288
Use Chromium then stupid

>>21465301
>no true ad block
lol no

>>21465301
No thanks.

Tell me what makes Chrome better than Firefox, back up your claim and I might consider to make the switch

>>21465319
IT SCALES IMAGES BETTER

IT`s F A S T E R !!

>>21465331
Don't care about the first

Show me some proof about the second

>>21465342
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMfPLHs0-wY

>>21465312
This is where I'm at with google chrome. It doesn't block many ads, and CANNOT block ads in videos. With google being the advertising giant that it is, of course I can see where they're coming from but I don't watch TV because of the shit commercials every 10 minutes. Why would I want to watch commercials while I'm on my computer? Many times those 'harmless ads' contain bullshit malware because sites care more about how much they get paid than making sure users actually want to re-visit the site.

Google chrome is shit anyway.

>>21465364
>not opening the same page on both browsers
>firefox loads just as fast regardless
>he quickly moves on to something else

This is the quintessential chrome fanboy right there, enjoy your ads.

>>21465276
>almost 2012
>still trolling with browser wars

>>21465331
>IT SCALES IMAGES BETTER
Most people don't care enough to switch. Mostly because it's so rarely an issue.
I didn't even know it was an issue until you people pointed it out.

I prefer chrome because it's a lot snappier, Firefox has random lags that are really disappointing.

>>21465409
>It doesn't block many ads, and CANNOT block ads in videos.
And this is why I won't be going to Chrome.

>>21465594
Those random lags are your connection, chrome is making heavy use of caching pages. Anyone with decent connection won't have any problems.

>>21465331

Hmm, watching 30 seconds of commercials on every video or have better image scaling, hmm it's a tough one indeed.

Whatever float your bot, bro.

>>21465666
Sure is worth the ads in videos bro. It's not like all you have to do is click to image and the difference is gone.

>>21465312
>>21465409
>>21465621
>>21465665
>>21465701

I use Chrome with AdBlock and don't get any adverts on youtube videos.

>>21465701
Experimential Adblock plus fixes the video ads.

Viewing ads isn't so bad. I can afford to watch a 15 second commercial for a 10 minute long video. Even in Firefox I usually have Adblock disabled. The people that make the websites need money too.

>almost 2012
>chrome still has shitty add-on support

>image scaling
Who cares? Who the living shitfuck cares?

It's a SCALED IMAGE FOR PREVIEW PURPOSES, who gives a shit about the quality?

Chromefags will make an issue out of any minor fucking thing to make their shit browser look better, won't they?

Chrome is fast and the interface is sexy. Firefox is ugly and is a laggy piece of shit.

>>21465732
They get the money anyway regardless if you block it or not, google has no way of knowing when you block an ad.

Keep trying and rationalize your poor decision.

Who said chrome can't block video adds is retarded. I havent seen an add on youtube in 2 years.

>>21465749

4OD, ITV Player, etc. Doesn't block them properly.

Chrome addon support is dire, still, after all these years.

>>21465749
>implying youtube is the only place you see ads in videos

>>21465742
>Chrome, sexy
>Firefox, ugly
Firefox you can customize to make it look great, depending on your tastes, hell, you could even make it look like Chrome. Chrome on the other hand, doesn't give you shit for visual customization.

>>21465764

>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741

>>21465787
>preview purposes
If it's a browser's job to preview something, the browser should do a good job at presenting it.

>>21465719
Me either. I am perfectly happy with my AdBlock for Chrome.

>>21465834
the image is already loaded, you are one click away from making the difference moot. Try harder chrome faggot.

>>21465741
It looks like shit?

Same with FF font rendering. It looks like shit and hurts my eyes.

>>21465868
Font rendering is fine.

>>21465866
There are very high resolution images out there if you know where to search. Some of us don't like to pan our viewports across thousands of pixels at a time.

>>21465834
If you want to stare at stupidly big downscaled images in a browser all day and be anal about aliasing issues in said huge pictures, be my guest. You are a minority.
Just because it should be fixed doesn't mean it effects everybody the same amount. I think it's pretty telling that people sink to this level to try and convince themselves or others that FF is shit.

>>21465462
nah bro, i'm a nightly user here and chrome does feel quite snappier, but is not enough for me to use it when all things are considered

>>21465276

>not using IE9 in 2011
>still using gbotnets #17 or memleakfox #25

ISHYGDDT

>>21465939
>hates on chrome and firefox and wants something proprietary
>not at least using opera

This shit is ridiculous, I don't care what browser you use do whatever you want. It isn't something that affects anyone or hurts anyone around you, so clearly the only agenda to promote a browser is of the ones that make money out of it.

Chrome used to be good.

The difference between Chrome and Firefox was like Firefox and IE back at Firefox 2.

Then Chrome became bloated.
Google keeps adding more and more useless stuff to it.

Firefox now has caught up in speed, even if it's still technically shit by comparison (no sandbox, awful image scaling, doesn't use more than one core, can't support private tabs together with normal ones, still can't do updates in the background etc).

However the only browser that actually feels as refreshing to use as Chrome used to compared to Firefox, or as Firefox used to compared to IE, right now is the upcoming Internet Explorer 10.
Too bad it's still awful when it comes to security, and has no extensions.

>>21465892
>to try and convince themselves or others that FF is shit.
Well I'm convinced that Firefox needs the improvement, anyway.

I've tried the mouse gestures extension on chrome and it was garbage.
efficiency to browse the way I like > any ms or aliasing issue.

Every browser has something that the other doesn't that I want in one.

>>21465977
It does. But you have to understand, the amount of worked up some people are feeling over that picture is not reflected in the majority of other users. In fact, even that picture hardly bothers me if I were wanting to look at it. But I rarely ever encounter such big pictures anyway, and the ones I do see are usually intending for me to zoom in to see small detail (like a map). Or they would expect you to save it for later viewing anyway. So it's largely a non-issue.
From that standpoint, I can understand the low priority on fixing this issue.
>>21466009
I don't use gestures myself, but the general sentiment I can agree with.

>>21466016
Pretty much.

Chröm tends to delete my userscript settings.
Also shitty downloadbar.

Oh, nice. Firefox 8.0.1 broke compatibility with fire gestures. I thought we were over this already

>>21466097
extension.checkCompatibility.8.0 or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

When will you fags learn?

>>21466113
*extensions

One thing I like about Opera is how when you open images, they are centered on the screen.

Can you set FF to do that somehow?

>>21466097
No it didn't.

>>21466113
>fags
Classy....

>>21466130

Oh hello, you must be new here.

You now realize the Google icon is an eye formed with 666.

Delete this Satanic Jewgle browser now.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397158,00.asp
>just trollin'

>>21466016
>>21466070
If only Konqueror weren’t so bad at JavaScript…
It would be so fucking perfect.

Another bad one for Firefox.

>>21466050
About the majority and what not, the one thing I have noticed is that a lot of people actually never dares to suspect that they would get such a difference in image output.
The majority of Firefox fnboys I've bumped into were in shock and called me a liar and whatnot.

I don't think you're qualified to tell us what the majority wants.

>are usually intending for me to zoom in
But that's not something you can know. High resolution doesn't mean that you're intended to zoom in.

>>21466140
HOLY SHIT

What's the point of images looking bad in the browser?

>he doesn't save his images
laughing neckbeard.jpg

>>21466161
>Another bad one for Firefox.
Another "Who cares?".

>go to boorus
>images are already resized server side, browser has no affect on quality
>open original 5MB image
>resize it to what it was resized already by the server
>complain

Amazing.

Can Chrome get rid of the download bar yet?

>>21466183
These.
Fucking downloadbar bugs me more then fucked up images in unlimited res.

>>21466183
>Can Chrome get rid of the download bar yet?
NOPE BUT IT CAN SCALE 20000 PIXEL IMAGES TO MONITOR SIZE BETTER THAN FIREFOX!

Hey, bro.
When you download images, do you open them all later in PS and cut their size down to your monitor resolution?

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefoxlive/
fuck bein' hipster, fuck bein' fast, fuck image scaling,
this is just so cute,

>>21466161
Also, Firefox tried to load the entire image (the decoded pixmap) into RAM last time I tried. Nice way to DoS unsuspecting users. I think Chromium still does it too, but I didn’t try recently.
Konqueror (more specifically the Gwenview KPart it uses) has always been able to handle insane resolutions just fine. Also, it has non-retarded ctrl+mwheel zooming (it actually zooms to where the mouse cursor is). Can your browser do that?
Also, can you paste a URL into 4chan’s file upload field? It can do that too, with every protocol supported by KIO.

>>21466197
yup and that's be most relevant use of web browsers

>>21466210
No, I use Honeyview to browse images with. It also has Lanczos just like Chrome.

This image resizing is a issue, but not a issue you're making it out to be.

How about Chrome actually does something for power users?
Or actually move from the deprecated GDI fonts?
Some customization?
HTTP Pipelining?
More addon control?

>>21466236
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
>>21466075
Any answers to that?

>>21466263
Anyone?

>>21466244
u so silly,
web browsers are for fappin to loli pics with retardedly large resolutions,

>>21466244
>HTTP Pipelining?

>>21466263
>>21466283
Someone? I'd like to enjoy that superior browser everyone's talking about.

>>21466302
HOLY SHIT THEY DID IT?

What about the others?

Links to that experimental AdBlock?

Just loaded up Chromium to youtube to see if it really was fixed and this is the first thing I see.

>>21466226
>Also, can you paste a URL into 4chan’s file upload field?
Both Firefox and chrome does that just fine.

>Also, it has non-retarded ctrl+mwheel zooming (it actually zooms to where the mouse cursor is
Firefox extentions like Imagetweak has done this for ages.

>testing chromium
>not as bad as I thought
>lacking features

are there any must-have extensions that I should know of?

>>Tell me what makes Chrome better than Firefox, back up your claim and I might consider to make the switch

i switched about 2 days ago,using chromeium. so far
+ huge speed improvement
+ adblock smarter when it comes toblocking stuff yourslef

- still can' t find setting to delete all my cookies/history/cache on browser close
- no plugin to save file automaticly in derectory depending on file type
- no firephp plugin
- does' t have so big blocking list like firefox for adblock

>>21466329
Hey faggot, answer this: >>21466306

>>21466321
adblock plus dot org. There's a pages that links to all the development builds.

>>21466346
> + adblock smarter when it comes toblocking stuff yourslef

I don't understand.
How can Chrome' ABP single URL with no domain control or anything be better than this?

Firefox thread? Firefox thread.

>>21466405
Approved.

>>21466405
Slut.
Denying me my harem, fucking whore.
Whore of Babylon is superior to your shitty ass.

>>21466349
Ask someone else, Chromium is just my backup browser.

>>21466329
>Both Firefox and chrome does that just fine.
No, they do not. They have buttons to choose LOCAL files only. Whatever happens if you paste an URL in that dialogue is matter of the OS (Windows for example downloads HTTP stuff via IE with no visible progress bar; on Linux it doesn’t work at all).
>Firefox extentions like Imagetweak has done this for ages.
>HURR EKSTENSHUNS

Why Firefox is so sexy?

>the guy who founded google is Jewish
>chrome is googles browser

Enjoy your CIA honeypot

>>21466453
Duh. You suck.

>>21466457
Well, you asked if I could past urls, and I'm just saying that I can.

>>21466395
because if it doesn't have confusing options that I don't understand then surely it's better

>>21466459
Too bad Chromium is better and scaling her.

*at scaling her

>>21466531
>scaling your waifu
No

>>21466531
How? The image isn't even 900px wide, there's nothing to scale.

>>21466554
>1463 pixels high
unless you have a 25600x1600 monitor, it has to be scaled.

>>21466161
Fanboys are shit.

>High resolution doesn't mean that you're intended to zoom in.
In the situation of most large images I've looked at with huge resolutions, it is. Or, as someone else pointed out, it's for archiving at big sizes. Neither of those are really made for casually staring at downsized in a browser. Besides those two reasons, there's probably no other good reason for such a humongous pixel size, apart from the rare case of computers having such enormous native resolutions.
>I don't think you're qualified to tell us what the majority wants.
And you are? I'm not the one who is upset about his animus looking bad downsized from 3000x3000. Can you really expect me to believe most people find themselves stuck in such a situation very often? Or that most of them would even care enough about it to switch browsers if they saw it?
Your image is an especially good example, because it doesn't even look bad in Firefox. It's not perfect, but not bad.

>>21466210
If I had a retardedly huge image (in resolution or just filesize) that I intended on posting on a non-enthusiast webpage, I would resize it. Just out of common decency. Then again, I'm not a complete dick.

So the entire argument that Chromium is better than Firefox hinges on the post-processing of images? I'm not convinced that thats enough to get me to switch.

>>21466585
It has to be scaled to fit height, but why the fuck would I do that on 4chan? I just open it and scroll down to watch the entire picture instead of a resampled one.

>>21466618
>I just open it and scroll down to watch the entire picture instead of a resampled one.
Me too, but not every picture can do this.

Also, the majority of people in the world are poor and only has 1024x768 monitors.

>>21465276
I use it just for Battlelog.

>flip a coin, heads chrome tails firefox

shut the fuck up

>>21466586
>doesn't even look bad in Firefox

Firefox fanboys are in such denial it causes blindness

>>21466549
>scaling your waifu
lmao

>>21466638
>Me too, but not every picture can do this.
Only images with huge width, you scroll downwards and up, not to the sides, that's why fitting to width is the best idea and scrolling down to view the image.

Also, the non lanczos resizer isn't a big issue unless you're dealing with a image several times wider than your monitor as the quality of the picture depends on how big the image is.
Smaller = looks nicer
bigger = not nice to look at when fit to monitor size.

Okay /g/ just for you, I'm going to try Chrome again for about a week.

If I'm not satisfied that this is the most awesome browser and it shits rainbows and kittens directly into my eyes, then the shitstorm of all shitstorms will take place in one week on /g/ about how I will never fall for your LOL CHROME bullshit ever again.

And this will be completely subjective, regardless of how this sounds. I'm going to give it a fair shot.

Happy?

>>21465276
>Almost 2012
>still thinking which internet browser you use matters to anyone but other fat lowlife people on the internet

ISHYGDDT

>>21466346
> still can' t find setting to delete all my cookies/history/cache on browser close

nope, can't do this without an extension. click&clean will do this job plus many others.

in FFthe 'save and quit' feature when closing the browser is what i would love for chrome to have. only way to do this is again, another addon called session buddy.

when it's all said and done, my memory usage at startup is higher on chrome than FF

>>21466672
No, I'm just not that anal about it. I'm not a fanboy of firefox, anyway. I didn't say it wasn't a problem. Just not a big one.

I like chrome simply for the way pages render. Yes, most often in firefox you'll see more of a page quickly as it loads, however once it does I find it to be sluggish to navigate the page. Whereas in Chrome (I'm guessing this is all due to webkit) the page itself renders slowly from the beginning but then it's smooth as butter navigating it.

And now that although through hacky implementation both adblock and flashblock work, I have no real use from any other firefox extension.

How about it? Want me to get all retarded over this?

Just image it
>CHROME CAN'T HIGHLIGHT HTML PROPERLY HAHAHAHAHAHAH
All day everyday, until you fucking love it.

Don't tell me now you don't ever highlight a lot of text, you'd be lying obviously.

>>21466586
>And you are?
I'm not the one claiming to know what the majority wants, you are.
I'm just saying from my experience that most people who are confronted with this difference are in extreme disbelief about it.

>In the situation of most large images I've looked at with huge resolutions, it is
I doubt that's the case for most high resolution images.
It's pretty much expected from any decent offline image viewer such as Honeyview to have great scaling capabilities. We're not in the 90's anymore.

Is there a way to separate userscripts on chrome instead of having them bunched in with all the other extentions?

>>21466751
lolshitkit

>>21466751
>Don't tell me now you don't ever highlight a lot of text, you'd be lying obviously.

I do but what's happening in your image is pretty situational.

>>21465276
That is a really poor rendition of the Mozilla Firefox logo.

>500 images of scaled Firefox vs scaled Chrome
WHAT THE LIVING SHIT YOU DUMB CHILDREN ARE YOU THIS FUCKING DENSE?

>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741
>>21465741

>>21466820
How can you preview something properly when it looks so bad?

>>21466638
your post makes no sense.
what are you trying to say?

>>21466686
>bigger = not nice to look at when fit to monitor size
i dont understand

>>21466717
Although session buddy will restore your previous session, it does not do it automatically like it should and you need to save/restore with multiple clicks to get what you want

It is NOT the same as the simple 'save and quit' option upon closing the browser and having it reappear automatically when you reopen like firefox does.

In this regard, chrome fails hard at something so simple to implement.

>>21466802
And opening images 3 times the size of your monitor and then scaling them down isn't?

Excuse me, I think you failed, get out.
What's even funnier that this guy that's posting all these images gets them from booru sister sites that already offer their VERY OWN SERVER SIZE RESAMPLED IMAGE.

What he does, is open huge original images that are much larger, then downscales them and complains about quality of the resized image.

Both are retarded, you both should be shot.
Yes, I am fucking mad.

Chromium

you want to move the tabs below the address bar?
FUCK YOU

you want to block ads?
FUCK YOU

Firefox

you want to move the tabs below the address bar?
go right ahead!

you want to block ads?
go right ahead!

>>21466756
>I'm not the one claiming to know what the majority wants, you are.
I'm using common sense to imagine how most people use their browser, and which websites they most often visit.
>I'm just saying from my experience that most people who are confronted with this difference are in extreme disbelief about it.
Maybe so, but that doesn't change what I've said about the issue.
>I doubt that's the case for most high resolution images.
From my experience, it is. Or they are for archiving.
>It's pretty much expected from any decent offline image viewer such as Honeyview to have great scaling capabilities.
True, which is where most huge images are probably meant to be viewed anyway.

>>21466876

fucking this. when I used furryfox I did not see a single fucking video ad ever. now every 25 seconds its a flurry of JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE

>>21466686
>that's why fitting to width is the best idea and scrolling down to view the image
Agreed.
But in those situations, Firefox still shows its limitation from time to time.

>bigger = not nice to look at when fit to monitor size.
Those look perfectly nice in Chromium...

tl:dr

ITT: firefaux asspain

enjoy your dated browser

>>21466862
>And opening images 3 times the size of your monitor and then scaling them down isn't?

I do that all the time, especially on this very site.