The main problem I have with Opera is that my first user experience was one of abject confusion ;)
The UI is really cluttered in terms of all the different bars and buttons that I didn't quite know what to do with.
Chrome just feels nice. There are some tabs, theres an address bar, and there is a back/forward and reload. I think there are other features too, I just don't see them ;)
I get rid of everything except the address bar. Previously I didn't even have that showing most of the time, as there was a keyboard shortcut to hide and show it (which has since been removed).
Once you've taken away all the clutter, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome all look quite similar (you can't remove much from IE7). Chrome is still the fastest by a huge margin, which is why I'll probably start using it on Windows.
Not until Chrome gets extensions/addons. I absolutely cannot live without ad blocking, better tab management, NoScript and my check-multiple-gmail-accounts addons.
And this strategy works out really well, too. 99% of people, the kind who will actually click on the ads, will just download Google's version and be happy. Hackers will switch to the ad-block-enabled version without any problems, and they wouldn't have clicked on the ads in any case.
i would do the same in MS's position - if they can't compete in the market, destroy it. if anyone complained to regulators, MS could claim the IE is the last browser to implement ad blocking
I always found it somewhat contradictory and hypocritical that the very people that live off ad-based websites (webbased entrepreneurs and founders) are so highly correlated with the group of people that absolutely cannot live without adblocking software - thereby robbing the siteowners of their income model.
Note: spydez - this isn't in any way meant as a personal attack, it just seemed like the right place to put my opinion on the matter.
I always found it somewhat contradictory and hypocritical that the very people that live off ad-based websites (webbased entrepreneurs and founders) are so highly correlated with the group of people that absolutely cannot live without adblocking software
what is the contradiction? we feed dog food to the mouth breathers, and save the caviar for ourselves
want "fair"? play checkers
if its any consolation, the precious little community of ad blockers is not even a rounding error in total web use
You have a point with this. I personally prefer to focus on content instead of having to ignore advertising that I will never click on unless I'm actually in a buying mode; when I'm NOT in a buying mode, there is no way in hell I'm clicking on that irritating HP flash eye-sore! If merely being exposed to an advertiser's message is the purpose of advertising on websites, then I would have to politely/respectfully say that I prefer not to be exposed to that which I am not choosing to have exposure.
I'm overwhelmed as it is...ad-blocking really helps turn down the noise. To me the whole approach of blasting users with advertisement is flawed, unless of course I'm actually in the mode of purchasing something, in which case I will gladly jump to Chrome or Safari (on my Mac at home).
I think having the freedom to turn the noise off/on as you see fit is part of a larger trend of the future where you have the option to do as you wish. Afterall, isn't freedom one of the core principles of the internet?
But if I ever do come up with an awesome idea, I'm determined I'll create it and make money off of it without putting up adverts. I hate adverts with a burning passion and I'm not about to force them down my potential users throats.
Advertising is one of the only ways to monetize free visitor aspects and paths. Advertising is one of the last American innovative markets. As soon as you start trying to bring any type of content that that is free, I am sure you will change your ways.
Blocking ads is like anti-bacterial soap. It makes your immunity to these things much lower if that is why you are so bothered by ads. Block ads on sites that you don't frequent, but ones that you do, throw some pennies in the hat.
Agreed. Personally, I find advertising much less annoying than having to pay for things directly, especially online where it's still easy to phish. The only ads I block are the obnoxious Flash ones.
There are lots of ways to monetize free sites. See Kayak or TicketStumbler. There's also the freemium service.
The reality of ad blocking software (which is spreading quickly and won't stop until it's as ubiquitous as popup blocking is now) is that you'll have to find a better, more integrated business model at some point.
My hunch is that ad blocking is a huge threat to Google. So if they can control the browser space...
I still don't know why IE doesn't ship with ad blockers. Would it hurt them? Perhaps in the short run. But in the long run, it would do far more damage to G.
I'm curious as to why you (and other people) hate ads so much.
Is it just the obnoxious flashing popup 'you won a contest' ads or even text ads in general?
I use an adblocker because I find the flashing images annoying. But text ads don't really offend me in any way.
I actually like some of the ads we get in the papers\magazines\television.
Yeah, I don't hate all ads. Occasionally I see one I like and try to buy stuff from the company that's advertising as a "thank god you're sane!"... It's just the other 95% of the ads that make diving for the remote and hitting mute a subconscious maneuver and AdBlock Plus a requirement.
I tried to block onlines ads myself - I used to use AdBlock (not Plus) with no downloaded filtersets - but I could not keep up, and they just kept getting more and more and more annoying.
This really isn't fair. Since we also consist of the demographic least likely to actually click on ads. Since impressions bring in such small amounts of revenue compared to clicks we're really not shitting the scales very much. In the end advertisers have found it an effective strategy at reaching people /not/ in our demographic.
Being a small demographic that isn't the primary income for many sites doesn't justify taking away their income.
While I agree that hackers often don't click ads some do - particularly if the ads are targeted to this demographic. In this respect it's noteworthy that sites such as Reddit and Slashdot derive their income from showing ads. And their primary audience is hackers.
I can't live without the vimperator plugin now. It's so nice to browse without using the mouse. I can't go back. If only Firefox had Opera's password storage interface I would be ecstatic.
Chrome offers nothing new right now aside from potential performance gains. If the beta version is crashing, that is worse for performance than slow-loading pages.
I love vimperator too, as well as Firebug and the delicious plugin. Until they have a Linux version, switching isn't an issue for me. I did try it on the Win box though and love it. I loaded pages with lots of JavaScript and it didn't blink.
Chrome offers nothing new right now aside from potential performance gains.
Still. The Webkit-based JavaScript engine performance gain IS something new.
Chrome certainly looks very promising. However it is still lacking many features. Until they get it all put together I doubt that I will be switching.
I've also read that IE8 has some nice features that Chrome does not have or doesn't do as well. I'd prefer to avoid IE8, but you never know, maybe MS got something right this time around??
Switched yesterday. I transferred 8 tabs from FF3 and 8 tabs from IE (formerly ran both, for different sites), and started using Chrome exclusively. So far, 100% perfection, 100% stability. All the financial sites, news sites, Amazon, ..., everything works perfectly. Great performance. Very slick developer tools built-in.
I'm currently using it, but I'm switching back to firefox on single core machines -- the multiple process method doesn't work too well on an older machine.
Chrome will not interest me until there is some ad-blocking available. Yes, it is superior to anything else out there, but my killer app for the web is still being able to surf the web sans irritating advertising.
If it sucks less than firefox, when the linux version comes out. Im to lazy to reboot to windows to try it out right now, and i usually switch a few weeks after something new comes out.
No real choice but Firefox as my main browser since my main web activity is development. Chrome, Safari, IE all can't compete with Firebug, YSlow, etc for web development, so for expediency I have to develop in Firefox first and test in the others afterwards. I think that's a big part of what makes Firefox such a compelling browser, it's developer heaven compared to the others.
It looks like Opera is starting to recognize this too, which should help increase support for their browser eventually too.
I agree with what you have said about Firebug. I absolutely cannot live without it. The Inspect feature of Firebug is priceless especially when working with the DOM. It's easy to use and it is in the same window. I do not have to switch windows to look at the html source.
For now, I just use Chrome for my "24/7" tabs like feeds and online email. I never have to close them and it loads at "notepad-like" speed :)
I've actually been using Fluid (http://fluidapp.com) for all my 24/7 stuff -- gmail, basecamp, github, hacker news ;) It really already does what Chrome's detachable websites feature kind of does, only better (for now at least, I'll give it time :).
if chrome lets you talk to a proxy, you could use privoxy, which is superior in all ways to adblock as well since it centralizes content filtering into a proxy, not a single-app extension
I'm kind of using both right now. I like Chrome, I might gradually migrate to it... it reminds me of Opera's sleekness.
The biggest irritations so far are the lack of "View Selection Source", and of course, no Firebug (though the built-in element inspector in Chrome is very impressive, but I haven't played enough with it to be convinced it can do everything Firebug can).
I have used Opera for years because of its speed compared to Firefox.
However, every Opera 9.5X release has had at least one major, show-stopping problem for me. I'm pretty sick of it, so as soon as Chrome gets AdBlock, I'll seriously consider switching.
Are PPC machines still even available on the desktop? I know IBM is still selling servers, but obviously a browser isn't much use on an 8 node node Power6 server. Seems like maybe PPC isn't a platform worth targeting new desktop software to...though, since it's open source, as long as its endian-sane, it ought to just be a recompile away, once it works on Linux.
Chrome is a good app. I played around with it yesterday. Sad that they are doing it "open source". They should license it, then they could get the revenue they need to be a serious competitor to IE. As it is, nor matter how good technically Chrome is, it will be a curiousity. Without revenue from licensing you can't play with the big boys. "Open source"/free software sounds good in a college sociology paper, but sucks as a business model. It's like flying a 4-engine aeroplane with two engines off. It's stupid. But on the technical side, it is good, and so I'll probably use it. I just feel bad for google's shareholders. They could really be doing a lot better off.
What Google is doing is commoditizing the browser in order to make the web more accessible - and most importantly more like an operating system by including a (supposedly) superior javascript engine that makes it possible to create real apps in a browser window.
The financial interest of Google is not to make money on the browser, but to change the game and move as many apps on to the Internet and away from the computer as possible. This is where their strength lies, and they know it.
In my opinion this is a genius and bold move to which Microsoft basically has no countermoves. If they play along and get better javascript performance in IE apps move to the web, if they don't IE will fall behind firefox and chrome. Either way Google wins.
They don't care about making money on the browser. They care about moving everything into the(ir) cloud.
I'm a bit confused about where you're coming from here. They could certainly have attempted to license v8 but since the bulk of what they have going on are extension of the already open sourced WebKit rendering engine that would have been difficult.
Now they certainly could have written their own rendering engine, but if time has shown anything it's that this is not easy task (look at the lag time between release to market and efficient rendering for any of the big engines). And in this case it would have likely meant the death of the project to step out with an inefficient root rendering engine.
Okay... so let's assume the above. They are forced to open source the components that link in with Web Kit, but they keep the Javascript VM closed and license that. We now get to throw into contention that there is any significant cash flow available to license. I think that's certainly suspect.
So finally let's think about why google might not care. This isn't about making a money move. Much like releasing IE back in the 90's wasn't a money move for MS. It is however a platform move. Google has a number of very resource intensive javascript applications, a number of which are common for people to have open at the same time. That requires have a better framework for dealing with these kinds of tasks. Chrome is an attempt to provide that.
It's not even clear if this is a serious browser bid, or more of a road map for other browser vendors to emulate. In the end it doesn't matter. Google's revenue stream requires eyeballs, lots of them. And the eyeballs are asking for better performance, Chrome is a means to that end.
I use Mac at work and Linux at home, so I'm SOL for the time being. Chrome looks nice, though, and I'll probably end up switching when they port to the platforms I use.
I wont be switching. Firefox is perfect for my use case and has features I want/need.
Portable Firefox: I use workstations at three different locations during the course of my day. Using Portable Firefox to keep my settings, bookmarks and saved passwords consistent on each machine is a MUST for me.
Adblock: Not necessary, but definitely nice to have.
So yeah, while my use case is pretty specific, Firefox fits it to a T.
101 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadHave you tried Opera? I use Windows and FreeBSD, so as Chrome isn't availble on FreeBSD yet I'll probably run Chrome on Windows and Opera on FreeBSD.
The UI is really cluttered in terms of all the different bars and buttons that I didn't quite know what to do with.
Chrome just feels nice. There are some tabs, theres an address bar, and there is a back/forward and reload. I think there are other features too, I just don't see them ;)
Once you've taken away all the clutter, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome all look quite similar (you can't remove much from IE7). Chrome is still the fastest by a huge margin, which is why I'll probably start using it on Windows.
I got used to it after awhile though, so I guess it was okay.
Talk about killing the golden goose.
Then again, they may decide the number of people who knew about and actually use ad block plugins is relatively small, so they may allow them.
Personally, I'd rather see the porting finished first.
i would do the same in MS's position - if they can't compete in the market, destroy it. if anyone complained to regulators, MS could claim the IE is the last browser to implement ad blocking
Note: spydez - this isn't in any way meant as a personal attack, it just seemed like the right place to put my opinion on the matter.
what is the contradiction? we feed dog food to the mouth breathers, and save the caviar for ourselves
want "fair"? play checkers
if its any consolation, the precious little community of ad blockers is not even a rounding error in total web use
I'm overwhelmed as it is...ad-blocking really helps turn down the noise. To me the whole approach of blasting users with advertisement is flawed, unless of course I'm actually in the mode of purchasing something, in which case I will gladly jump to Chrome or Safari (on my Mac at home).
I think having the freedom to turn the noise off/on as you see fit is part of a larger trend of the future where you have the option to do as you wish. Afterall, isn't freedom one of the core principles of the internet?
But if I ever do come up with an awesome idea, I'm determined I'll create it and make money off of it without putting up adverts. I hate adverts with a burning passion and I'm not about to force them down my potential users throats.
Blocking ads is like anti-bacterial soap. It makes your immunity to these things much lower if that is why you are so bothered by ads. Block ads on sites that you don't frequent, but ones that you do, throw some pennies in the hat.
The reality of ad blocking software (which is spreading quickly and won't stop until it's as ubiquitous as popup blocking is now) is that you'll have to find a better, more integrated business model at some point.
I still don't know why IE doesn't ship with ad blockers. Would it hurt them? Perhaps in the short run. But in the long run, it would do far more damage to G.
I use an adblocker because I find the flashing images annoying. But text ads don't really offend me in any way.
I actually like some of the ads we get in the papers\magazines\television.
I tried to block onlines ads myself - I used to use AdBlock (not Plus) with no downloaded filtersets - but I could not keep up, and they just kept getting more and more and more annoying.
I hate getting yelled at, basically.
While I agree that hackers often don't click ads some do - particularly if the ads are targeted to this demographic. In this respect it's noteworthy that sites such as Reddit and Slashdot derive their income from showing ads. And their primary audience is hackers.
Chrome offers nothing new right now aside from potential performance gains. If the beta version is crashing, that is worse for performance than slow-loading pages.
Chrome offers nothing new right now aside from potential performance gains.
Still. The Webkit-based JavaScript engine performance gain IS something new.
I've also read that IE8 has some nice features that Chrome does not have or doesn't do as well. I'd prefer to avoid IE8, but you never know, maybe MS got something right this time around??
I'd like too though.
If nothing else I think Chrome sets the bar higher for the incumbents - process isolation in a browser is a nice innovation.
Cheers
It looks like Opera is starting to recognize this too, which should help increase support for their browser eventually too.
For now, I just use Chrome for my "24/7" tabs like feeds and online email. I never have to close them and it loads at "notepad-like" speed :)
The biggest irritations so far are the lack of "View Selection Source", and of course, no Firebug (though the built-in element inspector in Chrome is very impressive, but I haven't played enough with it to be convinced it can do everything Firebug can).
However, every Opera 9.5X release has had at least one major, show-stopping problem for me. I'm pretty sick of it, so as soon as Chrome gets AdBlock, I'll seriously consider switching.
The financial interest of Google is not to make money on the browser, but to change the game and move as many apps on to the Internet and away from the computer as possible. This is where their strength lies, and they know it.
In my opinion this is a genius and bold move to which Microsoft basically has no countermoves. If they play along and get better javascript performance in IE apps move to the web, if they don't IE will fall behind firefox and chrome. Either way Google wins.
They don't care about making money on the browser. They care about moving everything into the(ir) cloud.
Now they certainly could have written their own rendering engine, but if time has shown anything it's that this is not easy task (look at the lag time between release to market and efficient rendering for any of the big engines). And in this case it would have likely meant the death of the project to step out with an inefficient root rendering engine.
Okay... so let's assume the above. They are forced to open source the components that link in with Web Kit, but they keep the Javascript VM closed and license that. We now get to throw into contention that there is any significant cash flow available to license. I think that's certainly suspect.
So finally let's think about why google might not care. This isn't about making a money move. Much like releasing IE back in the 90's wasn't a money move for MS. It is however a platform move. Google has a number of very resource intensive javascript applications, a number of which are common for people to have open at the same time. That requires have a better framework for dealing with these kinds of tasks. Chrome is an attempt to provide that.
It's not even clear if this is a serious browser bid, or more of a road map for other browser vendors to emulate. In the end it doesn't matter. Google's revenue stream requires eyeballs, lots of them. And the eyeballs are asking for better performance, Chrome is a means to that end.
Portable Firefox: I use workstations at three different locations during the course of my day. Using Portable Firefox to keep my settings, bookmarks and saved passwords consistent on each machine is a MUST for me.
Adblock: Not necessary, but definitely nice to have.
So yeah, while my use case is pretty specific, Firefox fits it to a T.