Google Chrome
- Thread starter fini
- Start date
Nor me. I'd like to know what sites people are visiting where they are seeing an appreciable speed increase. Most sites I visit load virtually instantly, if not instantly in FF2 already, so it's rather hard to improve on that. And FF doesn't feel the need to put up a white screen every time you navigate to a new page which I find rather off putting.
It's definitely faster for me in loading pages, maybe due to the pre-cache feature though I would've expected similar speeds with the same feature in Firefox.
One thing I'd like to see is another bookmarks menu as I've only seen the bookmarks taskbar and I'd like to get rid of it rather than have to "drag and drop" from "Other bookmarks" to make a list.
One thing I'd like to see is another bookmarks menu as I've only seen the bookmarks taskbar and I'd like to get rid of it rather than have to "drag and drop" from "Other bookmarks" to make a list.
What sites, and how does the precache feature (?) differ from the caches that other browsers use?
So far it seems to be pages with a few Flash advert banners like Planet Rock or Digital Spy, so I'm not sure if it's just the Flash player or not.
Then again some benchmarks on the browser is saying it's 8x faster than Firefox at processing JavaScript so maybe it's that instead?
http://code.google.com/apis/v8/run.html
I don't know how (if at all) pre-cache on Chrome is any different on other browsers.
It seems to have blocked peoples signatures on here and I don't have any adverts on gmail. It seems to have semi-adblocker.
I like the term "stats for nerds" in the task manager.
EDIT - Adverts are now on gmail
. Im not using this until they have greasemonkey and adblocker
I like the term "stats for nerds" in the task manager.
EDIT - Adverts are now on gmail
. Im not using this until they have greasemonkey and adblocker
Last edited:
Tried it on a Windows XP machine last night and comes up with a application error and fails to open any websites.
Tried it on a Windows Vista machine and seems to work all right!
Fine on my XP system (SP2)
You can effectively render ABP unnecessary with a decent hosts file though.
Still, I use a combination of the two.
For people who are having fun killing random processes and seeing what happens, you have to be careful because one of the chrome processes controls the gui, kill that one and you will lose everything, obviously. This one doesn't seem to be involved in any rendering though so shouldn't be crashed by a rogue page.
I daresay, but Adblock is a tad more intuitive with its wildcards and so on.
AIUI, Chrome does DNS precaching which AFAIK no other browser does - it shouldn't make much difference really, unless your DNS servers are slow at responding and the page you're going to doesn't already have a record cached within the OS.
There's a lot of variation there - the ones I ran before (Sunspider and dromaeo) showed Chrome being somewhere between 2x faster and 2x slower.
That said, Fx2 is a good chunk slower than Fx3.
http://code.google.com/apis/v8/run.html
I get weird results from that one - it has Fx3.1 slower than Fx3 then a massive gap between them and Chrome, when everything else has Firefox the other way round, and the gap much smaller.
There's a lot of variation there - the ones I ran before (Sunspider and dromaeo) showed Chrome being somewhere between 2x faster and 2x slower.
That said, Fx2 is a good chunk slower than Fx3.
http://code.google.com/apis/v8/run.html
I get weird results from that one - it has Fx3.1 slower than Fx3 then a massive gap between them and Chrome, when everything else has Firefox the other way round, and the gap much smaller.
Doesn't Windows do its own DNS caching? Making browsing DNS caching entirely redundant I'd have thought.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 991
- Location
- Redditch
Yep, that's what I'm seeing, unless the link is to another site (domain) in which case that is opened in another process.
You want a faster site? Try these forums 
Every time I load a new page in firefox it loads the text fairly quickly, but then it loads all of the images again and keeps on pushing down the text as it loads (an effect I REALLY don't like that they've seemed to introduce in FF3). With Chrome it loads the whole page very quickly, even when I open a thread in a new tab (something I do quite frequently).
I do like the whole idea of each tab and plugin using a separate process, it does mean that if/when they introduce plugins they will probably use the same idea and won't grind the whole browser to a halt.
One thing I did just notice: the dictionary highlighting is working, but the right-click suggestions aren't there Still, features like that will come eventually, I just hope that they don't add them at the expense of speed. The speed of Chrome begs the question why hasn't this been done before...
Every time I load a new page in firefox it loads the text fairly quickly, but then it loads all of the images again and keeps on pushing down the text as it loads (an effect I REALLY don't like that they've seemed to introduce in FF3). With Chrome it loads the whole page very quickly, even when I open a thread in a new tab (something I do quite frequently).I do like the whole idea of each tab and plugin using a separate process, it does mean that if/when they introduce plugins they will probably use the same idea and won't grind the whole browser to a halt.
One thing I did just notice: the dictionary highlighting is working, but the right-click suggestions aren't there
Still, features like that will come eventually, I just hope that they don't add them at the expense of speed. The speed of Chrome begs the question why hasn't this been done before...Pre-caching, it looks at the domain names in the links and requests a lookup before you click on them so you don't have to wait for the name to resolve before connecting to the server.
You want a faster site? Try these forums
It shouldn't do that
These forums load in a flash for me in FF2.
Am I the only one who dislikes the white page you get when navigating to a new page in Chrome?