Diemux
Underground3k.com!
Administrator
Official 110mb Guru
 Offline
Posts: 12079
Use search before asking...
|
 |
« on: September 11, 2008, 07:49:42 PM » |
|
Just noticed that the fading ticker isn't working in Chrome..
* realizing that Chrome gets worse every minute you use it...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Myles Grey
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2008, 08:01:46 PM » |
|
I haven't notice there ever be more than one thing on the 110mb news at a time before now. Normally you just add them together.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TeamYankee
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2008, 08:04:45 PM » |
|
I haven't notice there ever be more than one thing on the 110mb news at a time before now. Normally you just add them together.
Agreed... better to use a seperate child forum for News posts (admin posts only) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Confuser
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2008, 01:36:44 AM » |
|
Well just another reason why you shouldnt abandon firefox  I think they should just have one browser, gets rid of all the stupid cross-browser problems like CSS and javascript  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
general vegitable
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2008, 04:19:43 AM » |
|
agreed, kill IE kill chrome kill opera kill all other sh!tty ones, go firefox!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ğaz
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2008, 05:40:11 AM » |
|
agreed, kill IE kill chrome kill opera kill all other sh!tty ones, go firefox!!!!!!
*Heavy sigh* As much as I like firefox, calling every other browser names is bound to get people upset and offtopic. Yeah I don't feel like trying out chrome; too lazy I suppose but I like the customizable firefox. (Although, hoping for a new version cause 3001 crashes on win2k a lot for me  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tallfreek
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2008, 08:23:36 AM » |
|
3 comps, failure trying to install chrome. on 2000, xp, and vista. even xp in VMware. i will not use it. 3rd strike its out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Want to go on a internet drag race?  Computer Repair & Web Design www.garmantech.comBYAHHHHHHHHHHHHH * Image removed by admin - too large * <== damn, owned |
|
|
|
antimatter15
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2008, 08:30:32 AM » |
|
Just noticed that the fading ticker isn't working in Chrome..
* realizing that Chrome gets worse every minute you use it...
I'd be willing to debug it for you... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ajax Animator, a web-based, collaborative animation authoring environment with Flash, Silverlight, and GIF export.
|
|
|
Diemux
Underground3k.com!
Administrator
Official 110mb Guru
Offline
Posts: 12079
Use search before asking...
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2008, 06:19:34 PM » |
|
3 comps, failure trying to install chrome. on 2000, xp, and vista. even xp in VMware. i will not use it. 3rd strike its out.
Are you sure you aren't doing anything wrong  . (as around 5 million people installed it ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
manicgames
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2008, 08:30:03 PM » |
|
I hate chrome, out of all the things google has done that have actually been good, this is by far not google quality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Diemux
Underground3k.com!
Administrator
Official 110mb Guru
Offline
Posts: 12079
Use search before asking...
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2008, 10:06:00 PM » |
|
It is indeed missing the quality that Google usually delivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antimatter15
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2008, 05:10:52 AM » |
|
By "low quality" you mean it's not *exactly* like firefox. right?
and the rendering is for Webkit to blame. They didn't make any changes to the rendering engine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ajax Animator, a web-based, collaborative animation authoring environment with Flash, Silverlight, and GIF export.
|
|
|
|
Myles Grey
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2008, 05:26:24 PM » |
|
By "low quality" you mean it's not *exactly* like firefox. right?
and the rendering is for Webkit to blame. They didn't make any changes to the rendering engine.
Yeah, but they did choose Webkit. What exactly made them think it was good, Safari? That should be a deterrent... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
uh_Iforgot
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2008, 05:40:40 AM » |
|
I am the closest I have ever been to switching browsers (to chrome), so why do I seem to be the only person (apart from antimatter15) who actually likes it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
@emma what is the length of my pipe length of pipe = 1 millimeter |
|
|
|
antimatter15
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2008, 05:55:45 AM » |
|
Webkit conforms to the W3C standards very well. And most of you here just think "Oh. firefox supports the standards nicely, so everything firefox does is from the standards". and that's far from true.
Webkit, is a much more "modern" web browser, as in it's not very bloated. Gecko however, is bloated. *really* *really* bloated. It's not a web browser. Firefox is a web browser, but it's core still includes remaints of the Email client, WYSIWYG editor, internet publishing, etc.
It's closer to an operating system than a web browser. XUL is a UI markup language, there are tons of internal XUL apis (basically, XUL is HTML-for-apps done right), infinitely more powerful than HTML. Firefox, all it's extensions, etc. are all coded in XUL and javascript. It has huge JS apis for extensions (FUEL, i think). XPCOM, and others.
Of course, no browser needs it all. And having all this stuff (which gives the amazing extendibility of firefox), is really unnecessary.
It's really, not feasable for anythign to have this much crap. But firefox has it, and puts it to good use.
However, Webkit, is purely for the web. It's clean. No XUL support. No XPCOM. No Extension API (...like firefox's anyway).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ajax Animator, a web-based, collaborative animation authoring environment with Flash, Silverlight, and GIF export.
|
|
|
|
Ğaz
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2008, 06:05:52 AM » |
|
Webkit conforms to the W3C standards very well. And most of you here just think "Oh. firefox supports the standards nicely, so everything firefox does is from the standards". and that's far from true.
Webkit, is a much more "modern" web browser, as in it's not very bloated. Gecko however, is bloated. *really* *really* bloated. It's not a web browser. Firefox is a web browser, but it's core still includes remaints of the Email client, WYSIWYG editor, internet publishing, etc.
It's closer to an operating system than a web browser. XUL is a UI markup language, there are tons of internal XUL apis (basically, XUL is HTML-for-apps done right), infinitely more powerful than HTML. Firefox, all it's extensions, etc. are all coded in XUL and javascript. It has huge JS apis for extensions (FUEL, i think). XPCOM, and others.
Of course, no browser needs it all. And having all this stuff (which gives the amazing extendibility of firefox), is really unnecessary.
It's really, not feasable for anythign to have this much crap. But firefox has it, and puts it to good use.
However, Webkit, is purely for the web. It's clean. No XUL support. No XPCOM. No Extension API (...like firefox's anyway).
It may not be necessary, but it's fun and cool. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Diemux
Underground3k.com!
Administrator
Official 110mb Guru
Offline
Posts: 12079
Use search before asking...
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2008, 08:50:52 PM » |
|
Webkit conforms to the W3C standards very well. And most of you here just think "Oh. firefox supports the standards nicely, so everything firefox does is from the standards". and that's far from true.
Webkit, is a much more "modern" web browser, as in it's not very bloated. Gecko however, is bloated. *really* *really* bloated. It's not a web browser. Firefox is a web browser, but it's core still includes remaints of the Email client, WYSIWYG editor, internet publishing, etc.
It's closer to an operating system than a web browser. XUL is a UI markup language, there are tons of internal XUL apis (basically, XUL is HTML-for-apps done right), infinitely more powerful than HTML. Firefox, all it's extensions, etc. are all coded in XUL and javascript. It has huge JS apis for extensions (FUEL, i think). XPCOM, and others.
Of course, no browser needs it all. And having all this stuff (which gives the amazing extendibility of firefox), is really unnecessary.
It's really, not feasable for anythign to have this much crap. But firefox has it, and puts it to good use.
However, Webkit, is purely for the web. It's clean. No XUL support. No XPCOM. No Extension API (...like firefox's anyway).
Yes, you are totally right. But since 95% of the internet isn't w3c compatible I don't think it's a good move to be so strict to the "standards". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antimatter15
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2008, 11:48:18 PM » |
|
The problem with "non-standards" is that they are exactly that. non-standards. Normally, this means it's proprietary, and gives little or no documentation on how to implement it. So, the IE features are implementable by IE, and hard to implement on others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ajax Animator, a web-based, collaborative animation authoring environment with Flash, Silverlight, and GIF export.
|
|
|
|
soren121
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2008, 04:20:48 AM » |
|
The SMF news ticker doesn't work on Firefox 3.0.1 either.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mm3guy
Member
Offline
Posts: 39
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2008, 05:19:26 AM » |
|
Chrome has a bit to go before I consider switching to it. Plus, middle-mouse-button navigation doesn't work anymore!  Hey, atleast Google made it go open-source, so it should be getting massive improvements. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
