The <off topic> thread

[bEPIK]

I think Microsoft could have used a softer euphemism here

[csm725]

The problem is they only test the latest beta of IE9 and not the latest betas of the other browsers.

[Simon Brown]

To anyone that has installed the IE9 beta, does it install separately or replace IE8?

[csm725]

Seperately.

[Simon Brown]

Thanks

[Mike Ryan]

The problem is they only test the latest beta of IE9 and not the latest betas of the other browsers.

Doesn't bother me a bit. The fact that IE9 out paces and is more standards-compliant than the most recent stables of other browsers is extremely exciting. The most important aspect of the browser is that it drives developers to support standards quicker, and that makes the internet a better place.

[csm725]

It certainly warms my heart to see MS waking up and realizing that Apple and Google are up their (you get the rest...)

I think Win7 and IE9 show that MS care a little more than in the Win2K - XP era.

Still, the problem is, IE9 is just XHTML, HTML5, SVG, CSS, etc. compliant, but if MS concentrate on complying with standards (that all (or most) of all the other browsers already comply by), they cannot add new features. I predict, however, that IE10 will be a serious competitor with Chrome. Opera will run out of innovative ideas and Firefox will rise again. I love Firefox 4 Beta. Nearly driving me away from Chrome...

[Lance McKnight]

I'm still going to stick with Firefox. I still can't stand to use IE and I don't like using Chrome. I find Chrome interface to be very ugly and bland. I'm sure there are plently of theme to change the appearance of Chrome.

I'm looking forward to upgrading to Win 7. My wife is already raving about her new desktop at work, and being the skeptic, I'll wait till we have on the computer.

[csm725]

Yeah, the UI is a reason that I am heavily considering the switch to FF.

[D3T0N4T0R]

I'm not with you guys, unfortunately. Here are my reasons:

1. Chrome is much faster. It loads almost immediately on my computer, compared to FireFox, which takes almost 5 seconds. Not much, but it has given Chrome a, um, 5 second head start (Bad pun, I know)

2. FireFox has those pop-ups. every 3 seconds, a pop-up comes along, interrupting what you were typing and asking if you want a free $200 top-up on your phone. (for $8.95per week).

3. Chrome has everything you need, and nothing you don't. FireFox, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of stuff, taking up a quarter of the page, just for stuff that's already integrated onto Chrome.

4. Chrome is so much more compatible with Gmail and that's what we use a lot of the time at school. (for organising work and stuff- we're probably the only yr 8 class that uses it, lol).

There are my reasons. FireFox is still inferior to Chrome, and always will be. (In my opinion, or at least until the newer versions come out)...

[pyrochild]

1. Chrome is much faster. It loads almost immediately on my computer, compared to FireFox, which takes almost 5 seconds. Not much, but it has given Chrome a, um, 5 second head start (Bad pun, I know)

This is your only valid point. Also, I see no pun.

2. FireFox has those pop-ups. every 3 seconds, a pop-up comes along, interrupting what you were typing and asking if you want a free $200 top-up on your phone. (for $8.95per week).

Sounds more like adware or warez & pr0n sites.

3. Chrome has everything you need, and nothing you don't. FireFox, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of stuff, taking up a quarter of the page, just for stuff that's already integrated onto Chrome.

Sounds like you let installers install random toolbars like Yahoo! and all those smiley bloody potato things. BTW, all smiley toolbars are spyware and/or adware. All.

4. Chrome is so much more compatible with Gmail and that's what we use a lot of the time at school. (for organising work and stuff- we're probably the only yr 8 class that uses it, lol).

Gmail was designed for Firefox - Chrome didn't exist at the time.

There are my reasons. FireFox is still inferior to Chrome, and always will be. (In my opinion, or at least until the newer versions come out)...

Chrome's extensibility/customizability is a joke. It still doesn't have a real ad blocker, only ad hiders. And all of its themes look like bloody potato. The layout can't be changed.

All that said, I use both Firefox and Chrome on a regular basis. They're both excellent, standards-based browsers and really, that's all that matters.

[ClockworkDemon]

I use Google Chrome with a Super Mario Bros. Theme

[Mike Ryan]

4. Chrome is so much more compatible with Gmail and that's what we use a lot of the time at school. (for organising work and stuff- we're probably the only yr 8 class that uses it, lol).

This is one of the funniest things I've read all day. While I know better than to feed a troll and not to battle a fanboy, it is impossible to say that Firefox is inferior to Chrome. Firefox has years over Chrome in terms of development, and it set the standard from what we expect from browsers today. Chrome is just now beginning to even remotely catch up to the extensibility and raw power of Firefox - and while that is a good thing - it is important to know that Chrome still has a ways to go.

[csm725]

FF4 Beta > GC6 Dev

FF3.6 Stable < GC5 Stable (or 4 or whatever it is)

[Lance McKnight]

2. FireFox has those pop-ups. every 3 seconds, a pop-up comes along, interrupting what you were typing and asking if you want a free $200 top-up on your phone. (for $8.95per week).

3. Chrome has everything you need, and nothing you don't. FireFox, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of stuff, taking up a quarter of the page, just for stuff that's already integrated onto Chrome.

#2... I have adBlock and Flash block. Never seen a pop up in a long time and thank God for it. It makes my browsing experience more pleasant than being annoyed by those pop ups.

#3... Firefox has plently of themes, extensions, and plug-ins to enhance the functionality of Firefox. I think that Chrome had emulated Firefox on that one.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Lance McKnight

[csm725]

Yeah there is: "The Paint.NET Web Browser Discussion"...

[Rick Brewster]

I had the FF4 Beta 1 installed for about a week or whatever, and had forced on the setting for D2D/DW GPU rendering.

Slow. Buggy. But, promising.

They have much work ahead of them

[Rick Brewster]

Shiny.

[Frontcannon]

Is that.. pdn?

I suppose this is something different of the quality setting in eg. Radial Blur or the AnitAliasing settings?

Very interesting.

Also: 'QuadCore or better'. Are actually planning on using Hexacore architecture?? I heard AMD makes some, but that level of multi-threading looks like a lot of work to implement...

But also I don't know what I'm talking, so..

[pyrochild]

Also: 'QuadCore or better'. Are actually planning on using Hexacore architecture?? I heard AMD makes some, but that level of multi-threading looks like a lot of work to implement...

But also I don't know what I'm talking, so..

Paint.NET already can theoretically take advantage of many more cores than anyone on this forum has in a single computer. I think somewhere there are PdnBench results on computers with 24 cores. Or maybe 12 cores with hyperthreading.

[csm725]

On an Intel Core 2 Duo T6600, what setting would be optimal?

[Rick Brewster]

Paint.NET can use up to 64 cores on a 64-bit system. That's just a limitation of the basic thread management functions in Windows (they express thread affinity using a 64-bit mask). Going up to 256 requires using special functions, and nobody has that yet so there's no reason to worry about it.

On an Intel Core 2 Duo T6600, what setting would be optimal?

Optimal is subjective, and I'm not psychic. If it's too slow then turn it down. The cautionary sentence is just meant to point out that it has tangible performance consequences.

[himself22]

Rick, what web browser do you use?

[pyrochild]

Fact: I've set someone's hair on fire. Recently.

[Sarkut]

Video?