VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I ran cccleaner the other day because I couldn't completely get rid of my printer driver and software and it totally screwed up my browser which had taken me a lot of time to get to get just the way that I wanted it. It deleted all of my extensions (in Chrome and Firefox) and got rid of all my personal settings. I tried replacing my profile with a backup that I had but that didn't work (maybe a little) and I restored my computer to last Wednesday which was a day before I ran cccleaner but that didn't fix my problems. I've got Chrome almost back to where I had it but I can't get rid of this page...
    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	google-1.jpg
Views:	265
Size:	94.6 KB
ID:	23854  

    Quote Quote  
  2. Mentally Deficient Mr.Delusional's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2012
    Location: The ghetto of Emerald City
    Search Comp PM
    I don't use Chrome. But I found this article. http://www.omgchrome.com/google-removes-new-tab-page-flag/ It looks like a lot of people are unhappy about Chrome 33.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Maybe someone could explain it to me, because when I tried it (which was admittedly a year or so ago) I initially quite disliked Chrome, and after using it for a while I disliked it some more. I know it's probably the most used browser these days but..... what's the attraction? (for the record I currently use Firefox).
    Quote Quote  
  4. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    Google Chrome has been the new Internet Explorer 4/5/6

    Chromium says it doesn't contain Google's spyware, BUT it uses the same dumbed-down interface as Chrome

    Probably the FOSS developers are too lazy to create a decent GUI for the Webkit/Blink engine -.-
    Last edited by El Heggunte; 4th Mar 2014 at 10:40. Reason: : - /
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Chrome runs in a sandbox and provided more useful space for viewing the webpage than Firefox. Since I don't care about the kind of data Google collects and I didn't use any Firefox plugins, dropping Firefox in favor of Chrome was an easy decision to make.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    The first extension looked good but it did not work... Hide Most Visited Places.

    The second one works but it gives me a blank page which is OK I guess since I always used About Blank in IE6... Blank New Tab.

    I'm not sure that it was even an extension that I had or just text added to the Chrome Shortcut to make the page always open a certain way. I just got used to the normal Google page opening when I clicked the shortcut which was good since I use Google a lot and both gmail and wildblue are accessed from the Google start page. I keep a shortcut to Google in my Links folder on the Bookmarks Bar so it's not a big deal. Just one more click.

    Hmmmm. Now I'm certain that it was text added to the shortcut in my quick launch bar because when I use the shortcut in my Links folder, the normal Google page opens (not one with speed dial). The first window opens correctly from the quick launch bar but the second window opens with the last visited pages when not using the extension. I just can't remember what the text was to get Chrome to always open a new window with Google as my home page.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Chrome runs in a sandbox and provided more useful space for viewing the webpage than Firefox. Since I don't care about the kind of data Google collects and I didn't use any Firefox plugins, dropping Firefox in favor of Chrome was an easy decision to make.
    Given the recent fuss over adware/extensions and Chrome I suppose that's a good thing. No Firefox plugins? Not even an Adblocker? I guess without one, screen real estate would become a far more valuable commodity, assuming the F11 button on your keyboard is hard to reach.

    Each to their own but I couldn't bare the thought of not being able to use extensions and Chrome definitely didn't have a TabMixPlus equivalent when I tried it. An inch or so of extra web page the screen surely isn't why so many have switched browsers, is it? I'm just curious as to why it's so popular.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Chrome runs in a sandbox and provided more useful space for viewing the webpage than Firefox. Since I don't care about the kind of data Google collects and I didn't use any Firefox plugins, dropping Firefox in favor of Chrome was an easy decision to make.
    Given the recent fuss over adware/extensions and Chrome I suppose that's a good thing. No Firefox plugins? Not even an Adblocker? I guess without one, screen real estate would become a far more valuable commodity, assuming the F11 button on your keyboard is hard to reach.

    Each to their own but I couldn't bare the thought of not being able to use extensions and Chrome definitely didn't have a TabMixPlus equivalent when I tried it. An inch or so of extra web page the screen surely isn't why so many have switched browsers, is it? I'm just curious as to why it's so popular.
    That 's right, I'll take an extra inch of real-estate on the screen for web pages I want to read over having access to plug-ins I won't use. I don't use Chrome extensions either. No, I don't use F11 much because I use the Google options button quite often. Chrome allows duplicating tabs, so I don't need TabsMixPlus for that, and have zero interest in its other features. Using a third-party hosts file blocks many ads by itself.

    I don't see why some people want to continue living in the year 2006 when its 2014, either, but I guess some do.

    [Edit]I just remembered about the time I read that a few Firefox add-ons were removed from the repository for being infected with malware, and being glad I didn't use any. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/05/malicious_firefox_extensions/
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 4th Mar 2014 at 18:43.
    Quote Quote  
  9. So we've established Chrome provides an extra inch of screen real estate that for some reason can't be compensated for by running the browser full screen, hiding the menu bar or using the scrollbar etc (although since Firefox dropped the status bar they look pretty similar in that department to me), we've learned it's 2014 (better rush out and buy Win8 using that reasoning), discovered if you don't use extensions Chrome can be run without them like other browsers, and we know some Chrome extensions have recently been the victim of adware, even though for Firefox that appears not to have happened in four years, but if anyone can suggest why Chrome has become so popular, I'd be interested to know the reason.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 4th Mar 2014 at 22:11.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    So we've established Chrome provides an extra inch of screen real estate that for some reason can't be compensated for by running the browser full screen, hiding the menu bar or using the scrollbar etc (although since Firefox dropped the status bar they look pretty similar in that department to me), we've learned it's 2014 (better rush out and buy Win8 using that reasoning), and we know some Chrome extensions have recently been the victim of adware, even though for Firefox extensions that appears not to have happened in the last four years, but if anyone can suggest why Chrome has become so popular, I'd be interested to know the reason.
    The problem of individuals buying up popular extensions and re-writing them to do something else is relatively new. Google is attempting to address the problem, so in four years time, it may well be a distant memory for Chrome users too. ...but since I don't use extensions, it really does not matter to me either way.

    I stated my reasons for switching to Chrome, Firefox doesn't offer me anything extra that I want, I do not care for the user interface, and it doesn't come with its own sandbox. You forgot to pooh-pooh the sandbox. It doesn't keep out every kind of malware (or claim to), but can keep out some kinds. I can't tell you why all the others switched. However, since you likely do not understand the reasons why most people prefer using an LCD monitor, I really should not be surprised that you cannot grasp that there may be some reasons why more people like using Chrome more than they like using Firefox.
    Quote Quote  
  11. I thought refraining from pooing in the sandpit showed admirable restraint. I didn't even make a reference to running a browser without extensions and the year 2006, admittedly knowing how hard it would be to then resist using "third-party hosts file" and "the 90's" in the same sentence. See what I mean?

    When I asked if "an inch or so of extra web page on the screen surely isn't why so many have switched browsers", I realise I should have phrased it better so it couldn't be interpreted as questioning your reason for switching. On my "reason to switch browsers" list, a tiny bit of extra screen real estate is nowhere near the top, and I'd have imagined for the majority of people it'd be similarly low.... hence the question.

    So does anyone know why Chrome has become so popular? Is it something to do with LCD monitors??
    Quote Quote  
  12. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    @hello_hello --- probably you'd better start a new thread in the Polls forum
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Actually, Firefox toolbar is slightly smaller than Chrome toolbar because I can move my Links folder that I created (and everything else) to the address bar but with Chrome, I have to use the Bookmarks bar to show my Links and my bookmarks which were imported from Firefox. Firefox looks more like IE6 did with the menu, address bar and everything else on one bar but I've gotten used to using the button on the far right to access everything in Chrome.

    For me, Chrome seems to be a lot safer with cookies and scripting turned on so I use it for most of my surfing and use Firefox with cookies and scripting turned off to surf seedier sites It's easier to use two different browsers that to keep changing settings.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DarrellS View Post
    Actually, Firefox toolbar is slightly smaller than Chrome toolbar because I can move my Links folder that I created (and everything else) to the address bar but with Chrome, I have to use the Bookmarks bar to show my Links and my bookmarks which were imported from Firefox. Firefox looks more like IE6 did with the menu, address bar and everything else on one bar but I've gotten used to using the button on the far right to access everything in Chrome.
    Chrome's toolbar isn't bigger as I have Chrome configured. I disabled Chrome's Bookmarks Bar and moved all bookmarks off the bookmarks bar and into other folders. I use the menu button to the right of the omnibar's search box to access my bookmarks. I only see the Bookmarks bar now when I open a new tab. This is how an open webpage in the active tab looks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Chrome.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	36.1 KB
ID:	23903
    Quote Quote  
  15. Maybe Chrome has some sort of built-in screen real estate placebo effect which cancels out the extra space wasted by the Windows 7 windows. Or maybe trying to ignore the need for clear-type to make reading text bearable on an LCD monitor skews your perception of available screen real estate?

    Windows XP:
    "Firefox the way I normally run it" v "the Chrome image from post #16 resized to my desktop width" v "Firefox without the menu bar".

    Click image for larger version

Name:	ff ch.png
Views:	26
Size:	92.4 KB
ID:	23905

    Admittedly I don't really know how accurate that is because if I do the same using the screenshot from post #1, Chrome appears to take up much less screen real estate, but then again, the text is way smaller too, so maybe that's a desktop resolution difference.
    I tried installing Chrome for a screenshot but there's no installer to download and run (something I dislike) and the on-line installer seemed to just sit spinning it's wheels until I gave up. I might try again later.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 5th Mar 2014 at 16:28.
    Quote Quote  
  16. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    .......

    I tried installing Chrome for a screenshot but there's no installer to download and run (something I dislike) and the on-line installer seemed to just sit spinning it's wheels until I gave up. I might try again later.
    http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/download-chromium

    NOTE: Chromium's ZIP archive is 80MB big ---
    whereas my Seamonkey folder contains 48.5MB and my Opera folder contains 20.2MB.
    Quote Quote  
  17. I finally found a link for the Chrome Standalone Enterprise MSI package which worked. Using the online installer, which if I recall installs Chrome to a special location unworthy of any other software (ie not in the Program Files folder) is enough to put me off installing it. Does Chrome still normally install that way?

    I'm pretty sure the only reason Chrome wins the real estate competition by a massive six pixels is because I have icons added to the right side of the Firefox toolbar which increase it's size. If I removed them, I think Firefox might end up the winner by a pixel or two, given the "address bar" itself (ie text area) is obviously smaller and the tabs are smaller, but I can't be bothered re-arranging things to find out. Give me menus and let me put stuff where I can click on it any day. "Minimalist" can bite me on a desktop PC. I'll save that crap for my smart phone's 4" display.

    "Firefox the way I normally run it" v "Firefox without the menu bar" v "Chrome straight out of the box".
    Why is the Firefox drop down menu thingy orange? It's seriously ugly.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Clipboard06.png
Views:	27
Size:	59.2 KB
ID:	23908

    PS. After installing Chrome I have a Google folder in Program Files which has 392MB worth of files inside. My Firefox installation folder and my Firefox profile folder are in two different locations. I've also moved the Firefox cache to my Windows Temp folder, but the first two total 114MB, and that's with 29 extensions installed.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 5th Mar 2014 at 21:00.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date: May 2010
    Location: MS
    Search Comp PM
    All of you are wrong, LOL, I use the highly customizable Opera.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Opera's an odd browser. I'm not saying it's bad. In fact I'm confident it's pretty good. It's kind of weird it's never really caught on in a big way but I tried it a few times and never warmed to it, yet I could never quite put my finger on the reason.
    Chrome on the other hand..... it doesn't look like most other programs running on the same OS and it's GUI is so minimalistic it feels like it's almost apologising for running, yet it's very popular. I'll admit.... I don't get it.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Steve(MS) View Post
    All of you are wrong, LOL, I use the highly customizable Opera.
    I tried Opera while figuring out which browser that I liked best and which browser I would use for normal browsing and which one I'd use for the shadier sites. Not sure why I got rid of it. Looks like I still have a portable version. Just got rid of the shortcut.

    I found an extension for Chrome that puts an icon on the toolbar to access my bookmarks so I can now turn off the bookmarks bar. I'd like to be able to get file, edit, view also like every other browser has but again, that can be accessed from Tools on the far right (everyone calls it a wrench which it was at one time but now it is three flat bars). Firefox is the easiest to make look like IE6 (which was my goal) but it leaves some unused real estate after turning off the bookmarks bar. Opera, although it kinda looks like IE6 is the hardest since you can't move the address bar.
    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	browsers.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	92.3 KB
ID:	23925  

    Last edited by DarrellS; 6th Mar 2014 at 10:31.
    Quote Quote  
  21. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    The days of the old-school Opera (up to version 12.xx) are numbered : - /

    - more and more sites are being designed to be partially or totally incompatible with it
    (YouTube, Facebook, Skydrive, the new Megaupload, etc.)

    - its Javascript engine is slow

    - its password manager is buggy, and 3rd-party programs are required for decrypting the file wand.dat

    - it supports only a tiny subset of the EMOJI character set

    - it is abandonware
    Quote Quote  
  22. What about the new school Opera? It's still going isn't it? I haven't given it a spin yet, so I'm downloading version 20 at the moment.

    Never mind..... I see Opera turned into Chrome since I last tried it. It even has the same "Java application running on Java running on Windows" look to it.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    When I went searching for help customizing it, all the Opera forums and support sites were shut down and when I tried to search for anything with Google, the page was all screwed up with unrecognizable text running down the left side of the page which made it almost unusable. So it looks like you are right about it becoming abandonware.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    I finally found a link for the Chrome Standalone Enterprise MSI package which worked. Using the online installer, which if I recall installs Chrome to a special location unworthy of any other software (ie not in the Program Files folder) is enough to put me off installing it. Does Chrome still normally install that way?
    Chrome is located at C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe on my PC. Since I normally use the default location for installing software, that probably is the default.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    I'm pretty sure the only reason Chrome wins the real estate competition by a massive six pixels is because I have icons added to the right side of the Firefox toolbar which increase it's size. If I removed them, I think Firefox might end up the winner by a pixel or two, given the "address bar" itself (ie text area) is obviously smaller and the tabs are smaller, but I can't be bothered re-arranging things to find out. Give me menus and let me put stuff where I can click on it any day. "Minimalist" can bite me on a desktop PC. I'll save that crap for my smart phone's 4" display.
    Firefox does not use fewer pixels than Chrome when customized to use the minimum number of controls necessary for it to be fully functional as a browser and no icons. I downloaded the latest Firefox, since I no longer had Firefox installed, disabled the bookmarks bar, replaced the Firefox menu bar with the Firefox button, checked the setting to use small icons, and even removed all the icons from its Navigation toolbar. When I made another side-by-side screen shot of both Firefox and Chrome to compare the size of the controls, there are a masive 12 fewer pixels used for Chrome's controls compared to Firefox. The only way to make Firefox's control area any smaller (and even smaller than Chrome's) would be to remove the Firefox Navigation toolbar or tabs, which is possible, but that would cripple it as browser. If you insist I will post some screenshots, but there are so many posted already that it seems silly to post more.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    PS. After installing Chrome I have a Google folder in Program Files which has 392MB worth of files inside. My Firefox installation folder and my Firefox profile folder are in two different locations. I've also moved the Firefox cache to my Windows Temp folder, but the first two total 114MB, and that's with 29 extensions installed.
    Unless one uses a small SSD or a 40GB hdd as one's boot disk the difference in the hdd space used by these browsers is a trivial concern.




    So why is/was Chrome's minimal user Interface so appealing to me, especially when I switched? For one thing, I was using a lower resolution 4:3 monitor back then. Wasted desktop space is still a concern to me with a higher resolution 16:9 monitor because I want to avoid using most programs at full screen. I usually have 2-4 Windows sharing my desktop at one time, and one of them is usually a browser. ..and as you discovered, Chrome is also set up by default to display web pages at a slightly reduced size compared to Firefox so more of the page is visible. Firefox has to be customized to make it close to being as efficient in its use of space as is Chrome is using its default settings. All other things being equal (and they aren't) I would rather use something that requires a bit less tweaking to make it better for my purposes.

    As to why things aren't equal... I actually forgot one of my reasons for switching to Chrome, but I remember it now that I used Firefox again. Chrome loads pages a little smoother and faster than Firefox. Then there is the sandbox, which is admittedly more effective if someone uses any MS OS that is newer than XP. (XP has some additional connectivity-related vulnerabilities built into it that the sandbox can't do anything about.)
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 6th Mar 2014 at 11:23.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Chrome is located at C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe on my PC. Since I normally use the default location for installing software, that probably is the default.
    It definitely didn't install to the Program Files folder last time I tried it.
    http://techie-buzz.com/tips-and-tricks/where-does-google-chrome-install-itself.html
    According to this link, where it installs still depends on whether it's installed as a system program or for a single user. At the time I didn't bother researching the "why" given I didn't keep it installed.
    https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-discuss/MrfbaVTH4NM
    I usually don't install software to it's default location which for me is another annoyance with Chrome. If I had my way I'd install it in "C:\Program Files\Chrome" but unfortunately it's still special enough not to allow me to decide. I've got 106 programs installed under Program Files and only one of them is installed inside a folder with the same name as the company which produces it. Chrome. Well.... two if you count the drivers for my video card as a program. There's a "Nvidia Corporation" folder there too.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Firefox does not use fewer pixels than Chrome when customized to use the minimum number of controls necessary for it to be fully functional as a browser and no icons. I downloaded the latest Firefox, since I no longer had Firefox installed, disabled the bookmarks bar, replaced the Firefox menu bar with the Firefox button, checked the setting to use small icons, and even removed all the icons from its Navigation toolbar. When I made another side-by-side screen shot of both Firefox and Chrome to compare the size of the controls, there are a masive 12 fewer pixels used for Chrome's controls compared to Firefox. The only way to make Firefox's control area any smaller (and even smaller than Chrome's) would be to remove the Firefox Navigation toolbar or tabs, which is possible, but that would cripple it as browser. If you insist I will post some screenshots, but there are so many posted already that it seems silly to post more.
    No need. I created a new Firefox profile, let it open to it's default settings and compared them myself. I did nothing but disable the Firefox menu bar. Maybe Chrome compensates for the space Aero wastes better than Firefox, but when you're not using Aero:

    Name:  toolbar.png
Views: 5257
Size:  30.1 KB

    2 pixels, 6 pixels, 12 pixels..... if you're lucky at best it might be enough for a single line of text.
    Opera puts the menu button on the left where Firefox puts it. Having the menu icon default to being on the right side of the navigation bar is borderline retarded.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Unless one uses a small SSD or a 40GB hdd as one's boot disk the difference in the hdd space used by these browsers is a trivial concern.
    As opposed to the huge difference 12 pixels make when using a high resolution LCD? Seriously??
    Doesn't everyone create a small partition for the OS and programs? This PC has Windows and programs installed on a 40GB partition. For my other PC I made it 80GB. It's doesn't matter though. Even the 40GB partition on this PC has about 30GB of free space. I'll probably increase it's size if I upgrade XP.
    I might still be a lower resolution CRT user but I'm fully capable of connecting more than one to a PC. This PC has two 22" CRTs and a 51" Plasma connected to it. LCD monitors are so cheap these days, an extra 12 pixels of screen real estate is at least as trivial as a program using an extra 100MB of hard drive space.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    So why is/was Chrome's minimal user Interface so appealing to me, especially when I switched? For one thing, I was using a lower resolution 4:3 monitor back then. Wasted desktop space is still a concern to me with a higher resolution 16:9 monitor because I want to avoid using most programs at full screen. I usually have 2-4 Windows sharing my desktop at one time, and one of them is usually a browser. ..and as you discovered, Chrome is also set up by default to display web pages at a slightly reduced size compared to Firefox so more of the page is visible. Firefox has to be customized to make it close to being as efficient in its use of space as is Chrome is using its default settings. All other things being equal (and they aren't) I would rather use something that requires a bit less tweaking to make it better for my purposes.
    As I discovered?? They're virtually identical. Maybe if a web page doesn't specify a font and text size etc, Chrome might default to something smaller than Firefox but as most sites do and as both browsers are set to use any specified style by default.
    (Edit: I checked and both Chrome and Firefox default to using the same fonts. Same font size too)

    "This page in Firefox" v "This page in Chrome straight out of the box".

    Click image for larger version

Name:	text.png
Views:	14
Size:	39.4 KB
ID:	23942

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    As to why things aren't equal... I actually forgot one of my reasons for switching to Chrome, but I remember it now that I used Firefox again. Chrome loads pages a little smoother and faster than Firefox. Then there is the sandbox, which is admittedly more effective if someone uses any MS OS that is newer than XP. (XP has some additional connectivity-related vulnerabilities built into it that the sandbox can't do anything about.)
    If you can load pages in two different browsers and tell with certainty one consistently loads pages quicker than another you must have a faster than light internet connection and bionic senses. You only have to read any old browser benchmark test to realise the speed difference between them is basically zero in terms of human perception. At one stage Firefox did seem to bog down a bit with lots of tabs open, but that problem seemed to go away a long time ago. Chances are it wasn't Firefox anyway, but I'd installed an extension which was causing it.
    I think all browsers have some sort of "prefetch" system where they try to predict your actions and preload stuff in advance. Chrome's might be more aggressive than average, I don't know. The Chrome GUI has no setting for it. Opera seems to let you enable/disable it in it's settings. Firefox lets you enable/disable it using about:config
    (Edit: Well that's interesting. According to this site Chrome doesn't support prefetch, yet I thought Google's search was renown for using it. They even had the Google Web Accelerator at one stage. Maybe they use a different method.)

    Sandbox, shmandbox..... I've been running Firefox on XP without so much as an antivirus program installed for years now and I travel to all sorts of dark corners of the internet. If I'm lucky I might run Windows update twice a year. Number of infections to date, zero.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 7th Mar 2014 at 13:35.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    It definitely didn't install to the Program Files folder last time I tried it.
    http://techie-buzz.com/tips-and-tricks/where-does-google-chrome-install-itself.html
    According to this link, where it installs still depends on whether it's installed as a system program or for a single user. At the time I didn't bother researching the "why" given I didn't keep it installed.
    https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-discuss/MrfbaVTH4NM
    I usually don't install software to it's default location which for me is another annoyance with Chrome. If I had my way I'd install it in "C:\Program Files\Chrome" but unfortunately it's still special enough not to allow me to decide. I've got 106 programs installed under Program Files and only one of them is installed inside a folder with the same name as the company which produces it. Chrome. Well.... two if you count the drivers for my video card as a program. There's a "Nvidia Corporation" folder there too.
    There are more than a couple of programs on my PC that didn't ask me where they should be installed, or that had an odd default installation location, such as a folder on the desktop. It doesn't make me want to stop using them, especially if they can be moved. I can tolerate a little extra mess on my PC if I need or like using the program responsible for it.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Maybe Chrome compensates for the space Aero wastes better than Firefox, but when you're not using Aero:
    The amount of space "wasted" by Aero in this case depends on how programmers decide to arrange items within the top border, as would be the case with an XP Window too.

    When someone is using Windows 7, the Firefox button sits on top of the tabs instead of essentially replacing a tab on the left side of the window as is the case with XP. There is absolutely no reason Firefox's programmers could not or should not have used the same layout for both, which would have saved a few pixels as a side effect. (BTW, looking at pictures of Firefox 4, the Firefox button sat on top of the tabs originally, so why did the layout change, if not to save a few pixels?) Maybe the programmers don't feel it is worth their time to be consistent anymore since the current Firefox interface is now so unbearably ugly. LOL (I'm not entirely joking. I do find Chrome more attractive to look at. I greatly prefer the uncluttered interface and the more real-world look of Chrome's tabs.)

    [Edit]Well I finally managed to get Firefox to put the Firefox button where a tab would normally be. All I need to do is run it at full screen. Well, that really saves space on my desktop NOT. Time to delete this unattractive and less secure browser and never bother with it again.[End Edit]

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Opera puts the menu botton on the left where Firefox puts it. Having the menu icon default to being on the right side of the navigation bar is borderline retarded.
    Not really. Why copy some interface elements from the second most popular browser instead of the most popular one if you want to make it easy for new users to figure out which button to use for changing settings? Chrome copied the location of its Tools button (which later became the Menu button), from Internet Explorer 8, which according to some sources had more users than Firefox when Chrome was released. Even if the location of the menu/tools button were unique to Chrome, a user of normal intelligence who has used a Windows PC before should be able figure out which button to use in very short order. All one needs to do is mouse over a button and read the tool tip, and there are only a few buttons to investigate.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Unless one uses a small SSD or a 40GB hdd as one's boot disk the difference in the hdd space used by these browsers is a trivial concern.
    As opposed to the huge difference 12 pixels make when using a high resolution LCD? Seriously??
    My point was that it wasn't possible for me to make Firefox use less space for its controls on a Windows 7 system than Chrome does, as apparently you thought would be possible. It always used a 12 pixels more for me, unless I reduced its browsing functionality to an unacceptable degree.

    At any rate I don't have to tweak Chrome as much as I have to tweak Chrome to reduce the amount of space taken up by default controls to an acceptable amount, and Firefox offers me nothing that I want for my trouble that I can't also have with Chrome.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Doesn't everyone create a small partition for the OS and programs?
    I recognized some time ago that there are probably many worthwhile programs around today that require more than a couple of hundred megabytes for installation, and I wanted to leave plenty of room in case it was needed. So while I do keep the OS+programs and my data on separate partitions, the small partition I reserved for the OS and programs was about 200 GB. I also have HDDs that only contain data.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    I might still be a lower resolution CRT user but I'm fully capable of connecting more than one to a PC. This PC has two 22" CRTs and a 51" Plasma connected to it. LCD monitors are so cheap these days, an extra 12 pixels of screen real estate is at least as trivial as a program using an extra 100 MB of hard drive space.
    I wondered how long it would take to make that very unhelpful suggestion for "solving" my screen real estate problem. Who needs a multi-monitor array for general computing and some simple video editing now and then?

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    They're virtually identical. Maybe if a web page doesn't specify a font and text size etc, Chrome might default to something smaller than Firefox but as most sites do and as both browsers are set to use any specified style by default.
    (Edit: I checked and both Chrome and Firefox default to using the same fonts. Same font size too)
    Yes. My mistake. I didn't realize what was actually going on. Chrome merely remembers how the webpage was resized, even if the browser window is closed before the same page is opened again. Firefox does the same thing.


    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    If you can load pages in two different browsers and tell with certainty one consistently loads pages quicker than another you must have a faster than light internet connection and bionic senses. You only have to read any old browser benchmark test to realise the speed difference between them is basically zero in terms of human perception. At one stage Firefox did seem to bog down a bit with lots of tabs open, but that problem seemed to go away a long time ago. Chances are it wasn't Firefox anyway, but I'd installed an extension which was causing it.
    I think all browsers have some sort of "prefetch" system where they try to predict your actions and preload stuff in advance. Chrome's might be more aggressive than average, I don't know. The Chrome GUI has no setting for it. Opera seems to let you enable/disable it in it's settings. Firefox lets you enable/disable it using about:config
    (Edit: Well that's interesting. According to this site Chrome doesn't support prefetch, yet I thought Google's search was renown for using it. )
    Since I haven't timed anything, and it is just my impression that Chrome is loading webpages a little faster, let's say for the sake of argument that there is no perceivable difference in how these browsers behave on my system today. However, when I first tried Chrome in 2010, there was no question in the minds of most Chrome users (confirmed by various tech websites and publications) that Chrome was faster than Firefox and some of us switched at least in part for that reason.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Sandbox, shmandbox..... I've been running Firefox on XP without so much as an antivirus program installed for years now and I travel to all sorts of dark corners of the internet. If I'm lucky I might run Windows update twice a year. Number of infections to date, zero.
    So you always say. However, since malware doesn't necessarily make its presence obvious, how would you know if your system is infected with malware or not, if you almost never run a scan to look for it?
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 7th Mar 2014 at 18:19.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    The amount of space "wasted" by Aero in this case depends on how programmers decide to arrange items within the top border, as would be the case with an XP Window too.
    When someone is using Windows 7, the Firefox button sits on top of the tabs instead of essentially replacing a tab on the left side of the window as is the case with XP. There is absolutely no reason Firefox's programmers could not or should not have used the same layout for both, which would have saved a few pixels as a side effect. (BTW, looking at pictures of Firefox 4, the Firefox button sat on top of the tabs originally, so why did the layout change, if not to save a few pixels?) Maybe the programmers don't feel it is worth their time to be consistent anymore since the current Firefox interface is now so unbearably ugly. LOL (I'm not entirely joking. I do find Chrome more attractive to look at. I greatly prefer the uncluttered interface and the more real-world look of Chrome's tabs.)
    Talk about looking at it backwards. If anything, it's the Chrome developers who appear to have been too lazy to put the Chrome button up in the unused space when running Aero (just as it appears the Opera developers did) instead choosing to move it to a ridiculous location on the right side of the tab bar and simply leave it there, Aero or not.

    When running on Aero, if it looks like this, it makes perfect sense. I wouldn't want them to put it anywhere else.
    http://i1-win.softpedia-static.com/screenshots/New-Firefox-Button-Menu_1.png
    Putting the menu button at the top stops it from using space which could otherwise be occupied by tabs, it's situated in a location which would otherwise be a unused, and if that picture's any indication the tab bar wouldn't be moved down as a result of it being there, because the close/minimise buttons are in the way anyway. And most importantly of all, it's where you expect to find it.

    Menu button at the top of the window running Aero, moved down level with the tab bar when not, or menu button stuck on the right side of the tab bar regardless. Put it like that and I don't know why I'm even debating the topic as the former method being better goes without saying....

    The Chrome interface certainly isn't my cup of tea. I want programs which conform to the standard Windows colour scheme and layout etc, and not ones which look like they're running on a Java virtual machine.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Not really. Why copy some interface elements from the second most popular browser instead of the most popular one if you want to make it easy for new users to figure out which button to use for changing settings? Chrome copied the location of its Tools button (which later became the Menu button), from Internet Explorer 8, which according to some sources had more users than Firefox when Chrome was released. Even if the location of the menu/tools button were unique to Chrome, a user of normal intelligence who has used a Windows PC before should be able figure out which button to use in very short order. All one needs to do is mouse over a button and read the tool tip, and there are only a few buttons to investigate.
    It's GUI design 101. Follow convention. Opera did. I shouldn't have to hover and tooltip anything to find a menu button even if it's the only button and it looks so little like a menu button it ironically forces you to remember that's what it is. Google copied IE8's ridiculous layout? There's a thought. When can we expect Chrome to have a ribbon?

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    At any rate I don't have to tweak Chrome as much as I have to tweak Chrome to reduce the amount of space taken up by default controls to an acceptable amount, and Firefox offers me nothing that I want for my trouble that I can't also have with Chrome.
    All I need to do is disable Firefox's menu bar to even things out, given Chrome was born without one, and the difference between the amount of space they use is at most a couple of pixels, so I don't really know what you mean. Every pic I've looked at of Firefox and Chrome running on Aero seems to indicate they're pretty much the same when Firefox's menu bar is disabled.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    I wondered how long it would take to make that very unhelpful suggestion for "solving" my screen real estate problem. Who needs a multi-monitor array for general computing and some simple video editing now and then?
    Well I'll go out on a limb and assume you've never used a multi monitor setup or you'd not have asked the question.
    "Wasted desktop space is still a concern to me with a higher resolution 16:9 monitor because I want to avoid using most programs at full screen. I usually have 2-4 Windows sharing my desktop at one time, and one of them is usually a browser....."
    You can't have it both ways. One post you're running 2-4 open windows and screen real estate is at a premium, now it's general computing and simple video editing. If having multiple windows open simultaneously is making your workspace crowded, ideally you need another monitor, whether there's programs wasting screen real estate or not. Run a second monitor for five minutes and you'll realise that's the most helpful suggestion you've been offered in a long time.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Since I haven't timed anything, and it is just my impression that Chrome is loading webpages a little faster, let's say for the sake of argument that there is no perceivable difference in how these browsers behave on my system today. However, when I first tried Chrome in 2010, there was no question in the minds of most Chrome users (confirmed by som etech websites and publications) that Chrome was faster than Firefox and some of us switched at least in part for that reason.
    You've heard of "mob mentality". There's a similarly named internet phenomenon called "mob placebo effect".
    Seriously.... I've read so many things over the years..... computer tweaks are amongst my favourites. Often they're very popular because they speed up a PC. Even the ones which if they have an effect, would potentially slow it down.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    So you always say. However, since malware doesn't necessarily make its presence obvious, how would you know if your system is infected with malware or not, if you almost never run a scan to look for it?
    "Almost never" being the key there. The last three or four times I've restored an image before updating everything and making a fresh one, or before reformatting and starting again, I've installed anti-virus software, updated it, and let it run a full scan. Aside from a few naughty cookies they've not found anything. If ever a scan does, and I'll probably keep scanning once a year or so in the same way, I'll re-think my current policy/software and maybe even go back to running antivirus software full time.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 7th Mar 2014 at 19:12.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Talk about looking at it backwards. If anything, it's the Chrome developers who appear to have been too lazy to put the Chrome button up in the unused space when running Aero (just as it appears the Opera developers did) instead choosing to move it to a ridiculous location on the right side of the tab bar and simply leave it there, Aero or not.
    The Menu button replaced Chome's tools button, and includes all of the tools button's feature. It wouldn't really make sense to confuse the existing user base further by moving it somewhere else. The design team's only mistake was changing the icon to look like a menu to reflect that they added some functionality that wasn't originally present in the tools menus.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    The Chrome interface certainly isn't my cup of tea. I want programs which conform to the standard Windows colour scheme and layout etc, and not ones which look like they're running on a Java virtual machine.
    I like a little variety in that area, but if you demand more conformity in all your software's user interface, maybe you should switch to OSX. Historically, Microsoft seems content to allow third-party software developers to exercise a little creativity and self-expression in that area and instead of forcing them them to toe the line.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    It's GUI design 101. Follow convention. Opera did. I shouldn't have to hover and tooltip anything to find a menu button even if it's the only button and it looks so little like a menu button it ironically forces you to remember that's what it is. Google copied IE8's ridiculous layout?
    IE is Microsoft's own product, and I know with absolute certainty that their development teams followed a long list of guidelines when creating the interface for IE 8, since it was intended to be part of the OS. How is copying something from the design that Microsoft used for one of its own OS utilities flouting convention, when Microsoft creates the rules that people writing software for their OS are encouraged (but not forced) to follow?

    Designing a good icon that everyone can recognize is not all that easy. The icon Google used is an abstraction of a real world menu, a piece of paper with a list of items written on it. Unfortunately this has to be pointed out to a lot of people before they "get it".

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    At any rate I don't have to tweak Chrome as much as I have to tweak Chrome to reduce the amount of space taken up by default controls to an acceptable amount, and Firefox offers me nothing that I want for my trouble that I can't also have with Chrome.
    All I need to do is disable Firefox's menu bar to even things out, given Chrome was born without one, and the difference between the amount of space they use is at most a couple of pixels, so I don't really know what you mean. Every pic I've looked at of Firefox and Chrome running on Aero seems to indicate they're pretty much the same when Firefox's menu bar is disabled.
    I don't understand why you can't grasp that I want different things from a browser than you do. Firefox literally has no features that I want that Chrome doesn't give me already. In addition, Firefox lacks a feature I want, its own sandbox, but Chrome has one. Chrome is also closer to the minimal interface that I want out of the box. All I need to do is disable the bookmarks bar. With Firefox I have to disable both the top menu bar and bookmarks bar to get it closer to having the minimal that interface I want, and I have do without a desired feature, That is why I have no interest in using Firefox again.
    ,
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    I wondered how long it would take to make that very unhelpful suggestion for "solving" my screen real estate problem. Who needs a multi-monitor array for general computing and some simple video editing now and then?
    Well I'll go out on a limb and assume you've never used a multi monitor setup or you'd not have asked the question.
    "Wasted desktop space is still a concern to me with a higher resolution 16:9 monitor because I want to avoid using most programs at full screen. I usually have 2-4 Windows sharing my desktop at one time, and one of them is usually a browser....."
    You can't have it both ways. One post you're running 2-4 open windows and screen real estate is at a premium, now it's general computing and simple video editing. If having multiple windows open simultaneously is making your workspace crowded, ideally you need another monitor, whether there's programs wasting screen real estate or not. Run a second monitor for five minutes and you'll realise that's the most helpful suggestion you've been offered in a long time.
    I did have the chance to try a dual monitor set up briefly. I don't need one for what I do. I guess you never thought about it, but one of the Windows desktop's signature features has always been that it allows running multiple programs in re-sizable windows on the same screen. A lot of people who just do general computing make frequent use that feature, including me. Not everyone feels uncomfortable running a program in a re-sizable window if it is still usable that way. Windows even provides these helpful controls known as scroll bars to make it easier.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    So you always say. However, since malware doesn't necessarily make its presence obvious, how would you know if your system is infected with malware or not, if you almost never run a scan to look for it?
    "Almost never" being the key there. The last three or four times I've restored an image before updating everything and making a fresh one, or before reformatting and starting again, I've installed anti-virus software, updated it, and let it run a full scan. Aside from a few naughty cookies they've not found anything. If ever a scan does, and I'll probably keep scanning once a year or so in the same way, I'll re-think my current policy/software and maybe even go back to running antivirus software full time.
    That will bite you in the butt someday. I got complacent and didn't run a scan for 2 months because I haven't found anything but tracking cookies and some adware installers from free programs I downloaded from respectable websites since before I got a real router over a year ago. I ran a scan yesterday using Malwarebytes and it found a new PUP, identified as a trojan. I have no idea where it came from or when it got on my system. I don't go to the dark corners of the Internet or click on everything I see. The most recent programs I installed tested clean. I run a hardware firewall, a decent free software firewall, a decent free resident antivirus, and a sandboxed browser, and yet something still got in.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 7th Mar 2014 at 22:06.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads