Colluci
2009-04-29 21:20:34
Runescape website…
SRL Archive - Semi Stupid Pictures
Runescape.com
Torrent of Flame
2009-04-29 21:22:28
Which means?
Harry
2009-04-29 21:26:10
It means it is a site that is meant to steal your password/be dangerous to your computer.
Another reason why Chrome FAILS.
Another reason why Chrome FAILS.
Colluci
2009-04-29 21:48:23
It's not chrome its google that fails :>
Harry
2009-04-29 22:02:03
From: Colluci
It's not chrome its google that fails :>
LIES! Google made Chrome, and then if Google fails, then Chrome would. :D
Dynamite
2009-04-29 22:22:05
I agree, chrome sucks!
tried it one day, reformatted my comp the same day :P
T~M
tried it one day, reformatted my comp the same day :P
T~M
PriSoner
2009-04-29 22:56:03
I don't speak the lingo… but…. to me it looks like it isn't runscape.com or the browser at fault but rather the banner being served up by the banner provider that has been seen as potentially dangerous.
The browser has acted properly and tried to protect you from a potentially dangerous exploit.
It is quite common for the odd rogue banner to get through legitimate add providers even after screening.
I don't have problems viewing runescape.com with chrome or any other browser and I have a few installed! ;)
The browser has acted properly and tried to protect you from a potentially dangerous exploit.
It is quite common for the odd rogue banner to get through legitimate add providers even after screening.
I don't have problems viewing runescape.com with chrome or any other browser and I have a few installed! ;)
BobboHobbo
2009-04-30 13:15:34
chrome is awesome, its fast and very simple. its great.
spidi550
2009-04-30 13:21:46
From: BobboHobbo
chrome is awesome, its fast and very simple. its great.
chrome is a stupid browser.
Most importantly.
You can´t install add ons. Unlike firefox.
Firefox has a lot more features then chrome and is also editable.
You can edit firefox just as you like. (pink, blue, grey, etc)
And downloading is also annoying with chrome. You can't in any way download embedded files. Like video's, files or pictures.
Who's with me? :P
tico2
2009-04-30 13:40:35
From: spidi550
chrome is a stupid browser.
Most importantly.
You can´t install add ons. Unlike firefox.
Firefox has a lot more features then chrome and is also editable.
You can edit firefox just as you like. (pink, blue, grey, etc)
And downloading is also annoying with chrome. You can't in any way download embedded files. Like video's, files or pictures.
Who's with me? :P
Only one thing to say for chrome :norris: (pnwage)
Harry
2009-04-30 13:49:18
I agree with you. Chrome is all Firefox is, only stripped of plugin ability.
Also, have fun with your browsing history going into Google's hands on Chrome ^_^
Also, have fun with your browsing history going into Google's hands on Chrome ^_^
PriSoner
2009-04-30 14:03:06
Before you get into a Chrome vs Firefox argument please remember that Firefox gets 85% of it's funding from Google via the Mozilla foundation.
Google have already removed it's funding portion for Thunderbird (Gmail conflict perhaps?) how long do you think it will take for it to remove it's Thunderbird funding? The current agreement lasts till 2011 I can't see them resuming it after that.
Google are now too big. Their mantra of "Do No Evil" is now gone.
Google have already removed it's funding portion for Thunderbird (Gmail conflict perhaps?) how long do you think it will take for it to remove it's Thunderbird funding? The current agreement lasts till 2011 I can't see them resuming it after that.
Google are now too big. Their mantra of "Do No Evil" is now gone.
BobboHobbo
2009-04-30 14:14:52
@Prisoner - Ohhh really never knew that. That means Chrome wins ;).
Yes i agree that having addons like adblocker is nice. But the Firefox style is like windows 95 style compared to chrome. But it just depends on how you like things, so for me chrome is the one.
Yes i agree that having addons like adblocker is nice. But the Firefox style is like windows 95 style compared to chrome. But it just depends on how you like things, so for me chrome is the one.
PriSoner
2009-04-30 15:56:13
Sometimes simple is best, chrome is fast and simple..
It's how Google got it's dominance in the first place and it's over complexity now may just kill it.
Back in the day… long long time ago before google…. there were many search engines…
Altavista, infoseek, Inktomi (Hotbot/Yahoo's back end), magellan to name but a few.
Yahoo was a hand indexed directory and not a typical search engine.
Altavista was king, it claimed in part it's success was due to it's simplicity and the fact that it's main page took only 3 seconds to load on a dial up 14.4kbps modem.
Then came the dot com boom.
All the search engines scambled for the big money and the market decided the "Portal" was the way to go. They cluttered their front pages with too much bumph, the competed to stick as much into that real estate as possible. Front pages started taking minutes to load instead of seconds, large corporations fought over each and every search engines brand to buy and destroy and the search engine died.
Google entered the market at this point. It was essentially from the user point of view exactly like the old Altavista. Their front page was identicle to altavistas with just the logo changing. The advanced search options were the same with the flexibility to use vaious operands to make the search more powerful. All they did was bring back the simple old search engine design that people liked.
Their front page is still the same, but they are really trying to push everyone into creating that google account and changing their front page from the simple into the cluttered mess that killed all the old search giants. They have forgotten their roots and in my humble opinion it may just kill them.
It's how Google got it's dominance in the first place and it's over complexity now may just kill it.
Back in the day… long long time ago before google…. there were many search engines…
Altavista, infoseek, Inktomi (Hotbot/Yahoo's back end), magellan to name but a few.
Yahoo was a hand indexed directory and not a typical search engine.
Altavista was king, it claimed in part it's success was due to it's simplicity and the fact that it's main page took only 3 seconds to load on a dial up 14.4kbps modem.
Then came the dot com boom.
All the search engines scambled for the big money and the market decided the "Portal" was the way to go. They cluttered their front pages with too much bumph, the competed to stick as much into that real estate as possible. Front pages started taking minutes to load instead of seconds, large corporations fought over each and every search engines brand to buy and destroy and the search engine died.
Google entered the market at this point. It was essentially from the user point of view exactly like the old Altavista. Their front page was identicle to altavistas with just the logo changing. The advanced search options were the same with the flexibility to use vaious operands to make the search more powerful. All they did was bring back the simple old search engine design that people liked.
Their front page is still the same, but they are really trying to push everyone into creating that google account and changing their front page from the simple into the cluttered mess that killed all the old search giants. They have forgotten their roots and in my humble opinion it may just kill them.
marzey
2009-04-30 18:11:19
I'd make love to firefox its just hard getting use to it ….. I got my vista Ultimate gaming machine and browsing machine on gaming i use Firefox… However on the browsing firefox is slower cause this computer is crap….
Google makes good shit its google you just gotta know how to use it. Personally i cbfed getting use to 3 lol.
Marzy
Google makes good shit its google you just gotta know how to use it. Personally i cbfed getting use to 3 lol.
Marzy
snoker
2009-04-30 22:00:52
actually i think Chrome sucks really bad :/
google is better but FireFox is the best :P
….
google is better but FireFox is the best :P
….
Harry
2009-04-30 22:16:32
From: BobboHobbo
@Prisoner - Ohhh really never knew that. That means Chrome wins ;).
Yes i agree that having addons like adblocker is nice. But the Firefox style is like windows 95 style compared to chrome. But it just depends on how you like things, so for me chrome is the one.
lrn2skin
Just download a different Firefox skin if you like one better? :)
I use Personas addon.
Rastjuh
2009-05-03 15:11:27
Dont understand why people even use chrome :/
Rich
2009-05-11 21:01:41
From: Harry
lrn2skin
Just download a different Firefox skin if you like one better? :)
I use Personas addon.
Or just get some free shmexy Vista skins.
ritchmister
2009-05-11 21:34:47
sorry but what's wrong with good old internet explorer? :p
Harry
2009-05-11 21:36:27
From: ritchmister@hotmail.com
sorry but what's wrong with good old internet explorer? :p
http://milw0rm.org/related.php?program=MS+Internet+Explorer
http://crashie.com
ritchmister
2009-05-15 03:41:10
From: Harry
http://milw0rm.org/related.php?program=MS+Internet+Explorer
http://crashie.com
I see what you mean witht the exploits, but that website doesn't affect my browser atall :p
Harry
2009-05-15 04:21:14
From: ritchmister@hotmail.com
I see what you mean witht the exploits, but that website doesn't affect my browser atall :p
The SITE is not supposed to break your browser. The exploits on those sites break it.
It just shows how unsafe and fail IE is.
Daniel
2009-05-20 12:24:51
From: Harry
http://milw0rm.org/related.php?program=MS+Internet+Explorer
http://crashie.com
Sorry?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/161616/browser_showdown_ie_8_vs_firefox.html
http://www.techflash.com/Chart_Microsoft_runs_IE8_vs_Firefox_and_Chrome_in_drag_races_41155997.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/internet_explorer_8_is_better_than_firefox_3
What was your post again?
kingarabian
2009-05-20 15:04:18
Holy shit, dan. Are you implying that IE is better then FireFox O_O.
/Danial fail.
/ipdrowner fail.
/Danial fail.
/ipdrowner fail.
Daniel
2009-05-21 13:08:38
From: kingarabian
Holy shit, dan. Are you implying that IE is better then FireFox O_O.
/Danial fail.
/ipdrowner fail.
Nope, just rebutting Harry's point about it crashing IE. ;)