PROBLEMS WITH SITE LOADING PROPERLY

author=skylin05
I would normally agree with you, but this site is working now that I'm using firefox instead of IE.

But that's IE, that browser has always been horrible.
It just ain't right in da' head.

When I said "a browser is a browser" I didn't consider IE a browser, but a pain in the ass. :D

author=Link_2112
I choose not to support Google's attempt to monopolize the internet.

You say this like they haven't already taken control of most of the Internet.

author=GameOverGames Productions
I'm with kentona on hating how chrome exits when you close all your tabs. Minimalist UI is done wrong when it requires more work from the user.

it doesn't though. it is literally the same two actions in reverse. WHAT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HERE I'M TRYING MY BEST

author=WIP
As for RAM usage, Chrome using a lot of RAM is perfectly fine when you have a lot of RAM. PCs these days have a lot of RAM. There is no reason to not use RAM. If someone said "hey I have 2GB of RAM, Chrome is using 500MB of it and I only have 300MB left!" it doesn't matter. That 300MB is currently being wasted. The optimal function is to use ALL the RAM you have. You don't ever need extra RAM if you are not using it.

can i please post this everywhere forever? it's a common misconception that having a lot of RAM makes your computer fast. it doesn't; it just hemorrhages money with shocking efficiency. having fast RAM is what matters. i only have 8GB of DDR3 RAM in this most recent PC build, and i have yet to find any application that needs more of it. honestly, i could get by with 6GB. when i'm editing truly massive photos, i use real close to all 8183MB of that RAM, and that's a good thing! any overhead allows me to multitask other shit while photoshop crunches through stitching a large panoramic image.

sorry for the derail and pointless ramble, but the RAM amount == penis size thing has always bothered me.

Firefox is slow and clunky compared to Chrome and even IE9. You've never known the beauty of web browsing until you use Chrome on a regular basis. <3

If it matters, I utilize Chromium when I'm playing Flash games or watching Youtube videos. Chromium/Chrome is faster than Firefox in this regard, as I said sometime earlier.

If someone said "hey I have 2GB of RAM, Chrome is using 500MB of it and I only have 300MB left!" it doesn't matter. That 300MB is currently being wasted. The optimal function is to use ALL the RAM you have. You don't ever need extra RAM if you are not using it.

There is a noticable performance hit when the OS is actively using its swap file because all the RAM available to the system has been exhausted. Having free RAM means I can rest easy knowing I won't be ninja'd by some excessive swapping, not to mention smoother and faster system performance all around due to less swap file usage on average.

Also, since when was it the norm for software to be as heavy as they want? Whatever happened to light, efficient software? Sometimes I feel like we take the large amounts of system resources we have for granted.

Also KingArthur, I wish I could punch you so hard for not wanting Chrome's auto updater. It is one of the absolute best things you can do for a browser these days. There are so many security issues that popup with browsers and bugs being fixed that you always always always want the latest browser.

Except Google Updater also wants to update software completely unrelated to Google, like Firefox and Flash, among other things. It is also intrusive, installing (and running) Windows services and Task Scheduler items which I never wanted nor was asked about.

I, for one, don't want Google Updater barging in and modifying other software that it has nothing to do with on an automated, "don't ask, don't tell" basis; it is overstepping the authority that I personally give to software running on my system and I disdain it. The moment I see Google Updater on my computer, I have and will continue to completely exterminate it.

And yes, I realize Google Updater has a manual update mode, but that is after the fact of its intrusive nature.

When it comes to web technology adoption, it is always good for people to use the latest browser. Thanks to Chrome's auto-update mechanism, I can now be about 95% positive that people using Chrome can make use of the latest in web technologies. This is absolutely crucial for web development. I can now make a site that uses said awesome web technologies.

The same can be said for Firefox and Opera, both of which have automatic updaters (and I'm sure many other browsers do as well). The difference between those updaters and Google's is that Firefox's updater only touches Firefox and Opera's updater only touches Opera. Neither of them also install Windows services or place Task Scheduler items without asking me. Software knowing their place is a great thing.

tl;dr: I have nothing against updating software, I just have a problem with Google Updater.

author=geodude
you could've suggested any alternative and you chose firefox? wow

Yes wow it's quite amazing isn't it.

Firefox and Opera do not have automatic updaters. They have update prompts.

Google Update does not install Windows, Firefox or Opera updates. I have never ever once heard about this nor has anyone complained about it except you just bringing it up right here. If you are making this claim, please post some links backing it up.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=841905
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9174581/Google_s_Chrome_now_silently_auto_updates_Flash_Player

And about the RAM thing: you are trying to smokescreen what I actually said. Yes, the OS will use a swap file when it has to. But up until that point, you want to use as much RAM as you have. There is absolutely no reason NOT to use RAM.

My argument is that this is no excuse for software to be heavy and that software being light and efficient is still a selling point in this day and age of lots of system resources.

This is all pretty ironic too, back in the day Firefox was being bashed for being a huge RAM hog and having memory leaks.

And no, Firefox and Opera prompting you for an update is not the same thing as what Chrome is doing. You completely missed the point with it. Since Chrome will update WITHOUT USER INTERACTION, you can guarantee that after a few days, everyone will have the absolute latest. FF version is far far slower than that. There are plenty of statistics out there to back me up on this.

The only thing I'd allow to update silently is anti-virus software, and that's only for practicality's sake. However, whether silent auto-updates is a good thing or not is highly subjective and I don't believe we could discuss it without being biased and opinionated.

Did you even read that topic on Mozilla? They aren't fucking updating Firefox. They are updating Google-specific pieces that Firefox is using.

The fact of the matter is that Google Updater is modifying software that it has no business in. Just because it's updating "Google-specific pieces" doesn't make it any less bad than it already is.

The second topic I knew about. You got me on that one. It's also a huge benefit, though, because about 60% of attacks on Windows these days happen through Adobe software.

Indeed, Flash is a popular vector of attack. I'd like to state, however, that I already get update notifications from Adobe Flash's own updater and that I like it that way. I don't go to Google to update Flash just as much as you wouldn't go to McDonald's and ask for sushi.

Where's the documentation on Google Update installing Windows Updates?

I never once stated Google Updater installs Windows updates. I did however state that it installs a Windows service "Google Update Service (gupdate)" and that it creates several scheduled items under Task Scheduler without asking me for approval.

So what, performance is no longer an excuse for using resources that you otherwise wouldn't be? That doesn't make any sense at all. Today we have absolutely massive amounts of resources (RAM) that aren't being used and you want to keep it that way because it might make my browser faster.

I'd like to have my software not waste or use up needlessly large amounts of system resources so that the entire system as a whole won't be bogged down in the long run. Yes, I have 300MB of RAM free and doing nothing, but that's 300MB of RAM I can use for running other programs or just leaving there so I can avoid sudden spikes in swap file usage as a result of exhausting RAM supply.

Really, I'd like to ask this right back at you: Why would I have (or want) to use up all the RAM I have even when I have no need to?

WIP have i ever told you you're my hero

poor firefox. the browser that was left out in the cold...