Page 6 of 11

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:59 pm
by GµårÐïåñ
I hate to say this but despite its MANY shortcomings, its faster, leaner, more stable frankly, like Firefox USED to be. Now its become a bloated, slow and unstable hack job. I have said this for a long time, Firefox went from promising to disappointing and the rapid versioning says it all. Just my two cents, sorry OP, didn't mean to intrude on your reply.

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:31 am
by dhouwn
I hope you find that the rapid release process in Google Chrome just as disappointing. ;-)

(On other forums, I have read about people proclaiming that they are unhappy about the rapid-release process for Firefox or the fact that there is no more separate feature and bugfix branch, and that they therefore plan on switching to Chrome or Opera, which is kind of amusing.)

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:06 pm
by nanotec89
I came across this code issue today:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=90841&q=noscript&colspec=ID%20Stars%20Pri%20Area%20Feature%20Type%20Status%20Summary%20Modified%20Owner%20Mstone%20OS

Basically it lists the issues needed to be resolved in order to implement Noscript in Chrome

This is very exciting because it specifically mentions Noscript (not some hypothetical functionality) and also because the associated issues were created and have generated discussion within the past few weeks.

You can star this issue as well as the 'blocked on' issues to get updates and to increase attention to the issue by increasing the star count.

*****************It is not an open forum for discussion, but for developers to track issues, do not flood the comments with "+1 Me Too!!!" or other useless comments, it just spams a lot of people who are trying to make Chrome better. Thank you. (it happens a lot and sometimes they turn off comments altogether)***********************

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:07 pm
by Giorgio Maone
nanotec89 wrote:I came across this code issue today:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=90841&q=noscript&colspec=ID%20Stars%20Pri%20Area%20Feature%20Type%20Status%20Summary%20Modified%20Owner%20Mstone%20OS

Basically it lists the issues needed to be resolved in order to implement Noscript in Chrome

In fact, that list is the main outcome so far of my cooperation with Google's Chromium crew :)

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:59 pm
by nanotec89
For those curious as to why people are waiting for NoScript to be ported to Chrome before they bail on Firefox, I think I can sum it up here:
1. Speed, both perceived and actual
2. Smooth, clean interface (i.e. tab moving and tearing)
3. Extensions don't break. If an an extension works in Chrome 5, it will work in Chrome 15.

I felt inclined to post because I feel the majority of online comparisons between Chrome and Firefox fail to acknowledge point 3, considering how Firefox's rapid release schedule has been criticized for breaking addon's with each version.

I have heard the question asked "What is more secure, Firefox with NoScript or Default Chrome?" If both had full NoScript functionality, would you consider one more secure than the other?

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:01 am
by nickr
This post is in response to Giorgio's question about what makes Chrome a better choice for some people.

I have switched to Chrome full-time. However, I long to return to Firefox ultimately because I like Mozilla philosophy and the company. I post this in the hopes that others will read it (hopefully even Mozilla folks) and change Firefox for the better. Here are the reasons why I switched to Chrome at least for the time being.

1. Chrome is designed better from a UI perspective. Specifically:
-everything opens in a Tab, which makes for easy organization and recognition. A nice example is the Print command. Look at Print Preview in Chrome vs. Firefox. Chrome integrated Print Preview and Print in the same tab. And when you click PRINT the tab deletes and takes you back to the webpage. This is smart design and results in less things popping up on your screen and less clicks. Firefox opens a whole new window. And when you click print, you have then wait for the dialog to finish the job and then manually close the window. A burden.

-the FIND feature (Ctrl + F) in Chrome is AWESOME! Firefox's FIND function isn't even in the same league as Chrome's. It's painful to have to search a page with Firefox. There are dozens of small features to Chrome's Find function that I could single out that make it a delight to use.

-Chrome gives a nice Home page with a bookmarks bar. Users can show most frequented tabs or hide them at the bottom of the screen. Firefox just gives users a blank white page, nothing useful on it at all.

-Chrome integrates searching from the URL-bar by default. And typing Ctrl + K allows users to search a web address itself.

-I left Internet Explorer 7 for Firefox because I could customize Firefox to display less toolbars and claim more real estate. Chrome came out and claimed more real estate than Firefox by putting tabs over the titlebar (something Firefox still can't do on Linux).

-Chrome tabs blur the end of the Tab's Title instead of using an ellipsis (...). A nice feature.

2. Firefox has a horrendous problem with Memory Leaks. (This is ultimately what made me finally move to Chrome). Often time when I close Firefox, I can't reopen it again. When I click the Firefox icon I get a message saying firefox is already running. I need to Kill the process to be able to start it again. Chrome on the otherhand never has this problem and memory is given back to the system whenever I close a Tab.

3. Chrome has built-in Flash and PDF reader. everything the user needs for the web is present.

4. Chrome auto-updates itself and all its components, e.g., Flash, PDF, plugins, extensions. This improves security and lessens the burden on the user.

5. Chrome gives Linux more attention than Firefox. For example, Firefox gave Microsoft Windows users super-neat STRATA themed toolbar buttons, but Linux distros are stuck with crappy GTK buttons. Chrome gives Linux users a choice of GTK or the Microsoft Windows Themed buttons in the default install. How come Firefox didn't do the same for its Linux users?

6. Firefox users have been complaining for a long while that things can install plugins without user permission. Plus some plugins get installed without user permission and then they can't be easily uninstalled.

I'm sure there's more things that I'm forgetting at the moment. But these communicate the essence. There's no specific thing. Firefox grew non-responsive to users and began to lack innovation. Chrome raised the bar on UI, integration, the thoughtful way things function which aids ease of use. Things Firefox users have been asking for in bugzilla for years are showing up in Chrome.

Firefox is beginning to implement lots of these "Chrome positives." Firefox 8 is supposed to finally address plugins being installed without User's permissions. And due to Firefox's awesome customizability, some of these features can be hacked together (like searching from the URL-bar). But they are still way behind. Chrome caught Mozilla sleeping. The FIND function is a good example. There are bugzilla reports going back to like 2005 of people asking for mozilla to implement functions similar to what Chrome ended up implementing in its FIND function. Chrome has them implemented. Firefox still hasn't, yet this is a major tool that users use on a daily basis while surfing the web (at least I do).

Chrome isn't perfect. There are certainly things I like better on Firefox than on Chrome. For example, I like Firefox's tabs better. And I like how Firefox allows users to "scroll" the tabs when lots and lots of them are open. And I like the "Tab Groupings" that Firefox can do. I also like that Firefox has a Permanent Private Browsing mode that disables Cache. And I love Firefox's Awesome Bar and how users can tell it to display only Bookmarks. But when taken as an entire package, Chrome UI integration, lack of memory leak problems, minimalist design, and ease of use is what's winning a lot of people over.

I look forward to returning to Firefox. At least I hope too. But they need to address many issues where they've fallen behind. I think the rapid-release cycle is a smart move on Mozilla's part. I think Chrome woke Mozilla up. Thankfully :)



-

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:22 am
by wobblywheels
Just a quick, personal response:

I'm reading this thread because I've just been forced to bail out of Firefox and start using Chrome.

I hope this is temporary (I'm no fan of Google as a business), but for now I have little choice*. It seems that FF6 has a significant memory leak somewhere in the core modules. I hope there'll be a speedy resolution to this, but until then it's impractical for me to use it for web admin/development.

I can see the issues with Chrome from Giorgio's perspective. I can also see Nickr's perspective - it's similar to my own.

*IE isn't a 'choice' I'd make willingly.

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:08 pm
by nickr
wobblywheels wrote:Just a quick, personal response:

I'm reading this thread because I've just been forced to bail out of Firefox and start using Chrome.

I hope this is temporary (I'm no fan of Google as a business), but for now I have little choice*. It seems that FF6 has a significant memory leak somewhere in the core modules. I hope there'll be a speedy resolution to this, but until then it's impractical for me to use it for web admin/development.

I can see the issues with Chrome from Giorgio's perspective. I can also see Nickr's perspective - it's similar to my own.

*IE isn't a 'choice' I'd make willingly.


Yeah, the memory leak problems in Firefox are what finally did it in for me too. It's significant to note though that Firefox has suffered from this memory leak (it has gotten worse recently though) for quite some time. Mozilla Developers just ignored the issue for a long time despite user complaints. It's ultimately this lack of responsiveness from Mozilla Developers to fix these kinds of things that hurt Firefox.

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:24 pm
by tlu
nickr wrote:Yeah, the memory leak problems in Firefox are what finally did it in for me too. It's significant to note though that Firefox has suffered from this memory leak (it has gotten worse recently though) for quite some time. Mozilla Developers just ignored the issue for a long time despite user complaints. It's ultimately this lack of responsiveness from Mozilla Developers to fix these kinds of things that hurt Firefox.


This is no longer true for FF 8 which I'm running here. Memory consumption is dramatically lower. Background: http://gregor-wagner.com/?p=27 and http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/201 ... ss-week-2/

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:38 pm
by therube
Those are relatively old reports.
My observations in SeaMonkey, presumably with those "fixes" were far from acceptable, viewtopic.php?p=30670#p30670.
I never did get to give FF7/8 a good test, because I ran into crashing (very possibly video <card/mozilla setting> related) issues (that I may now be able to work-around).

> Memory consumption is dramatically lower

A lower "number" is not necessarily "better".

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:38 pm
by tlu
therube wrote:
> Memory consumption is dramatically lower

A lower "number" is not necessarily "better".


Agreed. But most complaints in the past were referring to the fact that
1. FF did not free up memory when tabs were closed, and
2. memory consumption steadily increased over several hours particularly when sites with heavy javascript activity were loaded.

I can see considerable improvements in Aurora for both areas. See also http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/201 ... nd-fast-2/ and newer blog entries on that site and on http://gregor-wagner.com/

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:47 pm
by nickr
tlu wrote:
therube wrote:
> Memory consumption is dramatically lower

A lower "number" is not necessarily "better".


Agreed. But most complaints in the past were referring to the fact that
1. FF did not free up memory when tabs were closed, and
2. memory consumption steadily increased over several hours particularly when sites with heavy javascript activity were loaded.


I'd add a #3 to this:
3. FF does not free up memory when closed (that is, when the application itself is closed it continues to hold onto memory for some time)

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:36 pm
by dhouwn
nickr"3 wrote:FF does not free up memory when closed (that is, when the application itself is closed it continues to hold onto memory for some time)
If a application does not free memory before exiting then it still gets freed (though there are some exceptions to it, like shared memory and DLLs under Windows).

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:03 am
by tlu
nickr wrote:I'd add a #3 to this:
3. FF does not free up memory when closed (that is, when the application itself is closed it continues to hold onto memory for some time)


Really? I've never observed that on my machine regardless which FF version I was using.

Re: Noscript for Google Chrome?

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:28 pm
by therube
It is quite common (now) for the Mozilla GUI to disappear (taskbar icons & whatnot are gone), yet the seamonkey.exe (firefox.exe) process remains for a period of time until its' memory has been completely released.

Obviously that all depends on how much memory you've amassed before you quit.

If you're quick, quitting the browser, then immediately (trying to) restart, you'll see you can't.


(Current SeaMonkey 2.4, FF 7, are better behaved memory-wise compared to the earlier aurora/nightlies I had been using at the time.)