[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:02:49PM +0100, Simon Waters wrote: >> Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Ross Bearman wrote: >>>> http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html >>> Can't be any worse than Firefox 1.5+ >> Why do you mention 1.5? It is three years old. > > As far as I can remember, that was about the last version that seemed > any better than a previous one; all they've done since then is fix > memory leaks and replace crufty old data files with crufty new binary > data files. Whilst I'm not so keen on the move the SQL data files, Firefox 3 is I think a huge improvement on 2. Not least there are some great improvements to security hid under the counter, performance is better. Fixing memory leaks is good as well ;) I'd far rather have a bug free browser than a super featured browser. Google's approach of one process per tab is interesting, but are they basically saying they can't write crash proof browser code. Although on platforms with good shared memory behaviour and fast process switching they can of course get away with that. Subjective opinion here was that Chrome is fast, although the FF on the machine it was tried on is running Firebug and YSlow amongst other add-ons, which will no doubt impact performance. Be interesting to see some formal benchmarks, and some formal security reviews. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html