What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
64 Comments
- Shitokki, on 11/02/2009, -0/+24I use both FF and Chrome. FF because of the numerous add-ons as well as greasemonkey scripts. Chrome for its quick loading and browsing speed. Neither have enough for me to use just one exclusively, but Chrome is on it's way.
- PCMichiana, on 11/02/2009, -1/+22Surfing the web at Chromespeed rules!
- EMFK, on 11/02/2009, -0/+19I like Tabs To The Front extension, but I also found a couple more that might be useful. Thanks for posting.
- upick, on 11/02/2009, -4/+20Out of all the extensions, the most EPIC of all is ADBLOCKER! Most hated by all websites like digg, but most loved my all the ad haters like me =)
- Nicoon, on 11/03/2009, -0/+10Vince's Clock? Invaluable Google Chrome extension?
- BeShirtHappy, on 11/02/2009, -0/+9I use FF and I'm not uber great with change... but Chrome could entice me.
- AmyVernon, on 11/02/2009, -1/+9Now that Chrome's getting more extensions like this, I might give it a try. I'm so used to all the customization on Firefox that I just haven't been able to overcome inertia to give it a shot.
- Shawn4168, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6Anybody able to help me out with a couple pointers on how to get extensions working? I've updated to build 4.0.223.16, and I've added the --enable-extensions tag to the shortcut, but it still tells me that extensions aren't enabled whenever I try the "Click to Install" links. Running Windows 7 RC on this machine.
- ericcc, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6I came across Google chrome out of the blue with a certain expectation that Chrome would be slow and unresponsive compared to FF or IE. Yet the speed difference is noticeable and much higher than 20ms especially for my somewhat heavy start page.
I don't hate IE tho I'm not pleased with it's default look and it really doesn't offer me anything that compels me to use it. I don't find it to be more stable, faster or responsive than FF or Chrome - inactive, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6Google's Chrome is still the fourth-place browser in terms of usage, but it gained more than others in October when it comes to stealing usage away from the dominant Internet Explorer. I mean just FYI stuff.
- pklall, on 11/03/2009, -2/+8I've been using chromium on linux for months and its never crashed.
- hawk196, on 11/03/2009, -3/+8technically, IE "does the job"
- dvsbastard, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5I used Chrome exclusively for a few months because it was lightweight, fast and I was stuck using an older under resourced machine... Now that I am back on something with a little more grunt, Firefox is my default choice - as no other browser can compete with the huge variety of extremely useful extensions (especially those aimed at developers)...
I have no problem recommending the use of Chrome - Especially to those who are using lower specced machines! - Oea420, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5adblock+ sealed the transition to chrome for me.. hoorah
- BrBybee, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3I am having the same issue.
- diemunkiesdie, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4These extensions only work with the development version. I'm not ready to switch to an unstable version (even if it is "pretty much stable" or you "haven't had any problems with the beta"). I'll upgrade Chrome when it is stable with extensions and try it again. But until then, I use my FireFox!
- BrBybee, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4LMAO... a IE fanboy... didn't think the existed.
- MAGZine, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3Perhaps it's a combination between caching/FF picking up the pace/chrome's development/imagination.
- m6ack, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3And... you're drunk...
- m6ack, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Use the PPA & be happy:
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-install-chromium- ...
Chromium won't be in anyones "official" trees until it "stabilizes." That being said, it's pretty darn stable right now. - kylescousin, on 11/02/2009, -1/+3Roboform needed, badly.
- drex8, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Since you admitted you're drunk, all your rants would come off looking as flakey as your id. And very few has access to 23mb connection for $40 (20 UK pounds I'm guessing ~ approximately US $40 I'm thinking) (don't have a pound sign on my keyb).
- inactive, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Been there. AFAIK extensions are still not supported in Chrome 3.0.x. You probably need to use Developer channel for using all these extensions.
http://blog.chromium.org/2009/01/google-chrome-rel ... - Cybrwolf, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Awesome! Just as soon as I can get a version of "noscript," and "CS Lite," I'll be jumping to Chrome!
- RobotBuddha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I've had the occasional odd hiccup, even if no real crash. That said, it's been a million times more stable than the stable version of firefox for me.
- Dojjah, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Whenever I try to install an extension from here, I get the error messages "Invalid permissions[0]".. I am running Chrome as the Admin. WTF?
- RobotBuddha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2What operating system? On linux it can be 10-20 seconds, not ms. The JS engine is important, but it's the UI which is the main difference for me. And the difference between firefox and chromium on my system is night and day.
- BrBybee, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2@ IE fanboy:
Your the only one bitching. - jaydedrag0n, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1can anyone tell me the equivalent of noscript, auto-pager, and craigslist image prefetcher, download statusbar, and greasemonkey, if they exist?
- hkrob, on 11/03/2009, -4/+5I can't persuade myself to try chrome (again) ... Firefox does the job
- esmitty20, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1I love seeing candy at the top of my screen.
- WomensUnderwear, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2*awaits flaketastic's crushing hangover*
- m6ack, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Did -- actually. There are trivial instructions on the net to enable the dev PPA on Ubuntu... and the dev version is sweet.
- BrBybee, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I was able to get it working. I just re-downloaded the developer build. Then it just worked. It didn't even have the "--enable-extensions" tag yet it still worked.
- AwesomeDeluxe, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Ever click a link thinking you're about to download a soundtrack, only to go to a webpage listing every individual mp3? That's what DownThemAll is for; download every mp3 (or any other filetype) on a webpage at once. It's awesome, and google chrome needs it.
- drex8, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Yeah I would prefer a html5 video extension. That would be a valuable extension. Saw someone talking about a html5 plugin on Safari in some other digg discussion. Would be nice to have something like that for FF or Chrome.
- m6ack, on 11/19/2009, -0/+1To follow up... I tried Chromium for a couple of days, and, yes, it's very quick. Problem is that AdBlock on Chromium doesn't work as well as on Firefox. AdBlock+ and NoScript on Firefox knocks out almost all offensive flash advertisement "thingies."
If advertisements were un-animated and pleasant, I'd let them live -- I'd almost even welcome them. If the world was a safer place, I'd let JavaScript have free reign! But with the current state of the internet, WRT tracking, and viral content, I need the full functionality of AdBlock+ and NoScript -- at a bare minimum (and a cookie manager doesn't hurt things either). I'm staying with firefox until I get at least AdBlock and NoScript on "${competitor}". - m6ack, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Seconded.
- drex8, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1So no pointers so far eh? I would use a chrome related forum to get solutions.
- viniciusb, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1Oh, now all you bitches are praising Chrome. Remember when you bitch-slapped it about a year ago?
- Supertrout, on 11/03/2009, -2/+2No Google toolbar yet? WTF
Guess I need to stick with Firefox a little bit longer. - RobotBuddha, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1"Just shows how many posters actually tried the content of this Digg."
How many people, combined, on digg use osx or linux? All the chrome and chromium builds for mac and linux can use extensions. I don't think we've ever had a build that didn't support extensions. - lexman098, on 11/03/2009, -3/+3Cannot use it until it remembers my zoom level for each site.
- relentlesslba2, on 11/03/2009, -3/+3These extensions only work with the development version.
THAT'S RIGHT PEOPLE! Useless page unless you're running the dev version - you can't enable extensions with the regular Chrome browser you download at this point. Just shows how many posters actually tried the content of this Digg. - javaroast, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1It's not exactly an adblock port Seems to be mostly element hiding. Adsweep was off to a good start and hopefully the new maintainer keeps moving it forward. In any regards it seems further ahead than this adblock+ thing for Chrome.
- m6ack, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1/me uses both OSX (for wife's Desktop) and Linux (for wife's NetBook, and for my laptop), but not Windows -- at all.
Am writing this note with Chromium on Ubuntu, and it's quite nimble. I'm running AdBlock+, but really want both NoScript & CS Lite before I'm convinced to switch from Firefox. Will try for a couple of days anyway. - m6ack, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1AdBlock+ is the first step, but I need NoScript as well.
But, yes, Hoorah at least for AdBlock. - shalinshaun, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1No FF digg fans to shout against chrome here? Chrome rules!
- josshey, on 11/24/2009, -0/+0GOOGLE CHROME WOULD BE NICE IF IT DIDNT CRASH EVERY 5 MINUTES.....IVE SENT ABOUT 500 REPORTS AND THEY STILL CANT FIX IT....IM SWITCHING BACK TO FIREFOX THIS BROWSER TOTALLY SUCKS.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is