Microsoft builds new browser

Slower than IE is now? No thanks. Will stick to FF. It is fast and got great add-ons.
 
Origin248 said:
Great to see more innovation in this sector. MS seems to respond each time a new competitor comes into the browser market. IE 8 for FF and now this for Chrome.
Click to expand...

entirely reactionary - no innovation involved at all.
 
The one downside of a tighter security model such as Gazelle's, is that the browser takes longer to render pages. In fact, in its research paper the team details tests in which opening a new blank browser tab can take more than five times as long as on Internet Explorer 7. Opening a tab with a site loaded, however, took less than twice as long as IE7.
Click to expand...

With IE already fraternizing "the slow bunch" Gazelle is then going to be even slower: a snail more like it ...

The Gazelle team says that some additional overhead is to be expected and will probably always be the case but it is confident that the latencies can be overcome with some additional tweaks.
Click to expand...

Wot Utter Bull !!!

If FF, WebKit, Chrome etc can all come to the table with their "additional overhead" AND still deliver faster results before any "additional tweaks" are required, then there is no reason why a company with full access to their own OS source codes (and undocumented features) can't outpace the competition on every front, yet they fail to do so on ANY front.

The competition consistently outpaces and out-innovates where MS is always reactionary and incompetant proving yet again that they can't play in the same sandpit.

/ throws a virtual sand-ball at MS.
 
apogeeza said:
The competition consistently outpaces and out-innovates where MS is always reactionary and incompetant proving yet again that they can't play in the same sandpit.
Click to expand...

I'll expect that the HTML formatting for web pages need to be changed to accommodate this new browser.

So now we have code for Opera, mobile browsers, firefox, ie6, ie7, ie8, chrome, gazelle, etcetcetc... isn't that a bit too much? :sick:
 
The_Librarian said:
I'll expect that the HTML formatting for web pages need to be changed to accommodate this new browser.

So now we have code for Opera, mobile browsers, firefox, ie6, ie7, ie8, chrome, gazelle, etcetcetc... isn't that a bit too much? :sick:
Click to expand...

There are other browsers besides firefox and opera? :confused: :eek:
 
The_Librarian said:
I'll expect that the HTML formatting for web pages need to be changed to accommodate this new browser.

So now we have code for Opera, mobile browsers, firefox, ie6, ie7, ie8, chrome, gazelle, etcetcetc... isn't that a bit too much? :sick:
Click to expand...

There can be a gazelle-illion :p browsers, if they are all standards compliant: no problem.

The problem comes in when one company decides that because they have an OS, they can therefore dictate.

Even "that fruit company" were guilty of the dictatorship pill and lost: "oh, because you bought that iSong from our iShop you therefore have to play it on our iPlayer and are not allowed to convert the iSong to any other format than our own iFormat."

It is nice when court-cases like that go the consumers way.
 
apogeeza said:
I nearly peed myself laughing when I saw the "Trident - Internet explorer" results stacked up against all the others. :D :D :D :D

Brilliant.!!!

No gazelle there yet.
Click to expand...

And MS IE 8 still doesn't fully comply with Acid 2 :sick: Though, they've recently changed their goals to be compliant.
 
Last edited:
apogeeza said:
Even "that fruit company" were guilty of the dictatorship pill and lost: "oh, because you bought that iSong from our iShop you therefore have to play it on our iPlayer and are not allowed to convert the iSong to any other format than our own iFormat."

It is nice when court-cases like that go the consumers way.
Click to expand...

iTunes always allowed you to burn a CD of the music and then re-rip those songs as MP3. They were also the first to sell DRM-free music, which meant
you could convert to MP3 very easily.

The difference with Apple was that Apple wasn't the dominant OS. You could buy players from Creative, Rio, Sandisk, Cowon etc. You
can only buy PCs with Windows in shops and even if you install Linux later,
you paid for that licence already.
 
... then why the need for Norway, Finland, Denmark(?) and a whole host of others to take iFruit to court? Because they were playing iGod with users and lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X