andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2010-03-17 11:00 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2010-03-17 11:17 am (UTC)(link)
IE9 may be faster, and will no doubt be the dominant browser once it is released, which is rather depressing. Now that Chrome has adblock, I have switched away from Firefox. There are huge numbers of extensions available now, many of which are more functional than those which were available for Firefox. Can't see me switching back as Chrome just doesn't seem to crash.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-03-17 11:36 am (UTC)(link)
Interesting - don't think I've had FF crash on me in over a year now.

Adblock for Chrome isn't bad - but it only hides ads, it still downloads them, which isn't quite as good.

I've played with Chrome a bit, and I think the only I'd really miss would be TabMixPlus. Most of the other things seem to have been ported over in some way.

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2010-03-17 01:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Adblock for Chrome isn't bad - but it only hides ads, it still downloads them, which isn't quite as good.

Dearie me, what's the rationale behind that?
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-03-17 01:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Chrome's API doesn't allow to content interception - only for updating the look of the page.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-03-17 01:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Google's API doesn't support interception before download.
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)

[personal profile] simont 2010-03-17 02:09 pm (UTC)(link)
One might argue that it had a useful purpose (at least, as long as one sympathises with advert-fatigued users more than with advertisers) in that it means the server providing the advert can't tell whether you're blocking it, and hence can't be tempted to adopt technical measures which (e.g.) refuse to serve you the page content on that basis. All they know is that the advert goes to your browser and a click-through doesn't come back, and they can't tell whether that's because you blocked it before or after it hit your retinas.

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2010-03-17 02:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I suppose, although that doesn't help so much if you're wondering why a page is taking so long to load and it turns out it's cause there are a billion ads on it that you can't see.

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2010-03-17 01:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I had no idea it did that, but to be honest as long as I don't see them I don't care. What I found fascinating is that the default setting blocks Google's adwords. Struck me as a little strange since that is the source of the majority of Google's income.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-03-17 01:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Is the plugin you use made by Google?

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2010-03-17 02:12 pm (UTC)(link)
No, but very few are. It is being promoted by Google though, it's the most popular extension on the Chrome website.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2010-03-17 02:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah - Google are being very good at being hands-off with the addons. Especially as they'er currently portraying themselves as the opposite of Apple, the last thing they want is an app-store fiasco!
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only