Google Chrome - the Google Web Browser

[Gesslar]

not at all unexpectedly, but, chrome works really quickly with gmail!

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by karahd
not at all unexpectedly, but, chrome works really quickly with gmail!

Of course one would expect it to work well with Google's own services, but I'm not sure which is cause and which is effect: a) Chrome has an excellent Javascript engine, and b) Chrome works well with Google's services, which are Js-heavy. It may well be that Google's strong emphasis on Javascript was a major factor in them deciding that they needed a really GOOD Js engine in their browser.

[Gesslar]

Oh for sure, their high reliance on javascript was a major defining reason for their javascript engine, and I personally think that this will be for the better for all of us as we move to bigger and better webapps.

Presently, and I haven't tested this yet but you can be sure that I will, in Google Reader I follow some 60 RSS feeds. It is basically two frames (i'm only concentrating on a specific two, at any rate): the left frame shows the navigation of the different threads and folders I have them set up in and the right hand is basically one really long webpage in a frame that keeps getting appended to as I scroll down, reading through my posts. Much like how mudclients work as they scroll and continually add text to the bottom of the screen (although I control the flow by going from post to post).

What would happen, normally, is that as the page gets longer it starts to take a really long time to navigate, so I end up having to click the link for the current folder I'm in to refresh it, causing it to reload but without anything I've already read.

Sometimes this fails and I have to close and reopen my browser, but I'd lose whatever I was presently reading. sadface.

I hope this dramatically improves it, however, as I normally read my feeds at work, I doubt this will impact me.

[Rosuav]

An article comparing three upcoming browser offerings: Firefox 3.1, Internet Explorer 8, and Chrome.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...fox-31-vs.html

[Rosuav]

By the way, picking this up from a while back:

Originally posted by karahd
- about:version shows details of what version of Chrome is running, along with the user-agent text that the browser reports when identifying itself to Web sites. Why "Mozilla" is in this string is a mystery to me, though perhaps it has to do with the way Chrome can use Firefox plug-ins; why "Mozilla" is apparently in the iPhone's user-agent text is even more a mystery.

This dates back to some Microsoft shenanigans ages ago. Or even further back, to some webmaster stupidities shortly before the MS shenanigans.

There was a time when the only browser that announced its User Agent as "Mozilla" was Mozilla (well, that broad branch - Moz, Netscape, etc). This browser had features that other browsers didn't, so web designers went "Is the string 'Mozilla' in the UA? If so, put this code out, if not, just emit something simple". And then Microsoft bring out their own browser. It supports a whole lot of stuff that used to be Mozilla-only. Oh dear, all these web sites don't send that lovely impressive content... I know! Let's announce ourselves as Mozilla "compatible", and then they will!

Of course, nowadays it's the other way around. Webmasters put in IE-only code... and so Mozilla browsers like Firefox are left behind. What's the solution? A UA-switcher!

I think things would have been amusingly interesting if the Mozilla name had been completely dropped from modern browsers, but left in the user agent string as an orphan. Because it's much much easier to rename a browser than to make drastic changes to things that depend on UA. Of course... nobody SHOULD depend on the UA. It should be a point of curiosity only, with the possible exception that spiders/bots could announce themselves, and be given a simpler version of a page (eg a set of navigation links rather than a drop-down list and a Go button). But, the world's not likely to change any time soon.

[Gesslar]

I should have mentioned that was pulled directly from a webpage, and wasn't necessarily -my- question. My mistake!

I happen to know why companies do wonky things with UA reporting.

(UA switching is a pain)