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
@Suttin: Just showing my age... there was a conspiracy theory with the Beatles that Paul was dead at one point and over time it morphed to John being dead.
Now the only question is for me, what codec will they adopt for audio and video? For there are two competing standards out there right now (excluding Microsoft's own weird ones):
1. Ogg Theora (Firefox)
2. H.264 (Chrome & Safari)
Now, one is open-source, while the other one, while technically an open standard, needs to be licensed in order to be used. This is a very interesting time in development of the web, and could set the stage for the next few generations to come.
This is still just a proposed standard, the W3C states right on their site that it's still heavily in flux, so it's going to be a bit before we see this fully implemented. But there are some very interesting new features here that could go a long ways to making much better web apps. And that's not including the video and audio which *are* nice, but not the coolest part in my opinion.
@telepheedian: Unless Adobe pull some awesome deals out their arse, Flash for use in FLV's may get scrapped. I'm sure the little Flash games will be safe for now though.
@TheSonOfKrypton: I was wondering the same thing. The iPhone seems to handle the flashiness of the mobile Gmail site quite well thanks to HTML5, but I'd imagine it's an incomplete implementation.
I'm rocking Chrome 2 and I'm sure its only 3(beta) that supports HTML5, but I can run the canvas thing fine.
So does Chrome 2 support HTML5 or are I'm missing something else?
Also I know its very pretty n cool looking, but I don't think there will be a vast amount of websites with swirly stuff going on. I can see the video tag being used quite a bit though.
Reil approved this comment
Striderhayasa - Can we get some damn m/kb support?! was starred
Striderhayasa - Can we get some damn m/kb support?! was unstarred
@thePrototype: Wait. I don't get it. I mean, I do get it, but I'm feeling an acute sense of cognitive dissonance which should explain to you that I don't get it. Are you meaning to imply that Safari doesn't abide by conventional web standards? Really? Safari? Sure you haven't crossed some wires and are confusing Safari for Internet Explorer?
@TheSonOfKrypton: It was sarcasm (hence the !) The OP was suggesting that Apple was supporting this technology because of the iPhone, instead of the fact that they like to adhere to web standards, similar to Firefox and Opera.
@TheSonOfKrypton: Anex makes the joke that Apple is pushing it hard since the iPhone doesn't support flash.
Then Prototype makes a wiseass comment that Apple isn't the only one pushing this hard. Usually this is the part that I make a jackass comment, but I too have mixed up the word nevermind with unlike.
@anexanhume aka Flintheart Glomgold: Just FYI, apple may be pushing it, but it's a web standard as thePrototype mentions sarcastically below.
It's being pushed because HTML 4 is fraking old!
Safari has supported web standards from the get go.
Creating a more ubiquitous way to playback media, and interact intuitively with an "app", I think is the benefit.
@thePrototype: I wasn't suggesting that they would act otherwise without this development, I was merely pointing out the incentive to push this through. They clearly have no interest in flash. While they are pushing for a standard, they're also advocating H.264 as the codec rather than an open one, so they're not all about making the standard chummy with everyone.
Stop making things so fast. I remember waiting 35 minutes to download a hot babe off of a BBS line.
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.
I'm using this now and it rocks. Definitely my goto browser when I'm designing pages. Not all the themes seem to work right yet... I can see this going the ugly route MySpace customizations took. If kept to a minimum of add-ons, this is gonna be real hard for IE or Firefox to compete with.
@Paradise: Average person - "Mozillawhut?"
"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.
@deanbmmv: ([k]): are you serious? what reality are you living in?
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?
@Paradise: Google has a crap load more brand awareness than Mozilla/Firefox. And a crapload of Adspace (you been on Youtbe the past year?), and they can/do have deals with OEMs. The OS/browser stuff only really applies in tech circles.
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
@deanbmmv: ([k]): you're comparing apples and oranges again. google has brand recognition for search not a web browser. the firefox name has brand recognition as a browser ... chrome does not [yet].
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.
@Paradise: Google also has a crap load more than search. It may be Apples to Oranges, but the Apple is alot bigger. (and funds the Orange)
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?
04:29 PM
06:38 PM
07:18 PM
11:01 AM
10:25 AM
10:29 AM
edit: I need a full pot of coffee..
10:50 AM
10:52 AM
11:00 AM
11:56 AM
@Kaiser-Machead: It cool. It feels like a monday here.
04:35 PM
08/05/09
1. Ogg Theora (Firefox)
2. H.264 (Chrome & Safari)
Now, one is open-source, while the other one, while technically an open standard, needs to be licensed in order to be used. This is a very interesting time in development of the web, and could set the stage for the next few generations to come.
08/05/09
08/05/09
This guy got owned.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
-Typing this now on my 3GS.
08/05/09
08/05/09
So does Chrome 2 support HTML5 or are I'm missing something else?
Also I know its very pretty n cool looking, but I don't think there will be a vast amount of websites with swirly stuff going on. I can see the video tag being used quite a bit though.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
[echochamber.me]
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Then Prototype makes a wiseass comment that Apple isn't the only one pushing this hard. Usually this is the part that I make a jackass comment, but I too have mixed up the word nevermind with unlike.
08/05/09
It's being pushed because HTML 4 is fraking old!
Safari has supported web standards from the get go.
Creating a more ubiquitous way to playback media, and interact intuitively with an "app", I think is the benefit.
08/05/09
08/05/09
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
06/29/09
06/29/09
06/29/09
06/29/09
06/29/09
no they don't. That's why the started removing music from their videos.