Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/05/09
Now, it's like 50,000 babes in 2 seconds. Nobody can handle that much porn.
Please take it in, in the size of your fist. That's why America got fat.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
"Google, oh yeah, well Google run the internet, makes sense to click on their icon as much has the blue E"
Chrome fits in with their website, it's simple, it works, and it works quickly. The tearable tabs is great for Duel-Screen too.
08/05/09
People know what Firefox is (it's got a 20%+ market share and brand awareness). People do not know what Chrome is (i mean is it an OS or a browser or even just what is it)?
as i said above, the javascript speedup is true but how is it more simple than say IE or Firefox? What I think you and others are trying to say is that it's less bloated. I've never seen anyone have trouble just using tabs and an address bar (something that's in common with all browsers).
as for tearable tabs, i know you can move a tab in firefox 3.5 to another window or even to a new window via drag drop. is this the same as the feature you're talking about for Chrome?
08/05/09
I feel it has less clutter and alot of FF's clutter comes from Add-ons, so can be helped. Gives more browsing space too. And not everyone's tech literate, which is what Google have kept in mind, so don't need every single feature. I miss a few add-ons, but most I can live without.
Its also 'snappier' (in the same way that Win7 may not run faster when benchmarked, but it feels faster)
Yeah thats what I meant by 'tearable tabs' just faster, and works 100%.
p.s I still do use FF, it's useful for a few stuff, and Chrome ain't got a PortableApps version yet, so I have FF on my thumbdrive still, just on my home PC Chrome is the preferred browser.
p.p.s the resizeable text boxes are uber awesome too. I miss them when I'm not using Chrome
08/05/09
firefox doesn't come with any addons pre-installed and i know more than a fair share that don't use them. besides, it's better to give the user the option to add something on than to not let them do so. off the top of my head i can't think of anything in the default installation of firefox that i would consider bloat.
in terms of snappiness i think you're seeing that in the "smooth" animations chrome has (e.g. maximize the window or open a new tab). i'll agree with you that it's snappier but not necessarily faster in that sense.
08/05/09
Firefox fresh n clean is still fuglier than Chrome fresh n clean. and may I suggest you look up on Chrome 3.0 (the one with Themes, add-ons etc)
The smooth stuff makes it feel less snappier if that was the case. Snappy is an un-quantifiable measurement, and the best word I got for what it feels like.
Chrome is also alot nicer for brosing Giz n co:
[kotaku.com] - 350+ replies, load it up in FF then in Chrome. (heads up, it freezes FF)
Either way the vibe I'm getting is you have a vendetta against Chrome, so lets call each just each view Giz in our browser of choice, and agree that both of them are better than IE?
08/05/09