Brell Rants

Freecare Spiritwise · Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:14 am

It looks more like Chrome than Chrome does. And it's fast as shit. I think this is my new favorite browser.

Firefox is too slow and Chrome has some annoying quirks that bug the fuck out of me. I use 'em all for my web development so I'm set in what I want from a browser and so far this one is the bee's knees.

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:49 am

I just got done reading this:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382108,00.asp
It looks like IE9 is lacking on the HTML5 stuff.

Still using IE8 here at work for testing reasons, but I'll have to give IE9 a whirl at home some time. I think I'm pretty dedicated to Chrome at the moment, it will be hard to draw me away.

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:44 pm

Good article, thanks

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:21 pm

Oh, and I'm definitely going to check out the new Chrome too.

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:52 pm

Firefox + AdBlock Plus + No Script = What's IE9/Chrome/Safari?

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:04 am

IE9 is light years ahead of IE8 and easily in the same league as FF and Chrome now. I still prefer FF after a stint with Chrome but have to give a tip of the hat to MS for closing the gap. The HTML5 features "missing" really isn't as big a deal as FF/Chrome make out. MS's story (if you believe it) is they didn't want to implement any of the standards that were still being settled, instead concentrating on the more solid stuff.

Dd

Minute · Post by **Minute** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:31 am

I ♥ Chrome

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:48 am

I'm working on a massive insurance policy management system and Chrome is giving me a lot of grief right now for this project. It thinks it has all my forms figured out and shows some of the input fields in yellow. Except that it has most of them wrong and there doesn't seem to be a way to tell it "don't try to do anything helpful for this particular form". It also looks hideous.

Neither FF, IE nor Opera have this problem with our software.

There's also a couple more good glitches like on a couple of the forms done by my overseas guys where you can't key in a lowercase T using Chrome. The browser just seemed a little rough around the edges for us to be able to tell our clients that it's a browser that we "bless" for our systems. Maybe the new version is more mature and less annoying.

The two things I liked best about Chrome were its speed and the minimalistic interface. Now IE has both of those. We'll see if the missing HTML 5 features cause us any grief but my apps are just basic business apps without any of that flashy crap so I'm thinking that I will be pushing IE for our systems.

I'm really Jazzed about the new browser but then again I've been a Microsoft shop since about 1990 when Windows first came out, so I'm biased.

Freecare Spiritwise · Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:43 pm

An HTML 5 demo from the MSDN home page:

http://html5.cynergysystems.com/

Arathena · Post by **Arathena** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:54 am

My PC at work just got transitioned from IE6 to IE7.

Been using Chrome for reasons of speed at home, but with the auto updates, I haven't been paying too much attention to the version number, and it feels like it's getting less polished as time goes past, both Chrome for Windows and Chromium on Linux. Crashing more, and have a wierd bug where it doesn't always like to display checkboxes.

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:21 am

Freecare Spiritwise wrote:An HTML 5 demo from the MSDN home page:
http://html5.cynergysystems.com/

Fun.

Arathena wrote:My PC at work just got transitioned from IE6 to IE7.

... wow

Freecare Spiritwise · Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:57 am

Someone told me that the 32 bit version of IE9 smokes even the newer releases of the other browsers 32 bit versions, but 64 bit IE9 is suppose to be the slowest of the bunch for the 64 bit browsers.

I'm seeing the opposite of that on my new AMD rig. My last work machine, a quad core Intel seemed to thrive on 32 bit apps so I suspect that the performance might be more dependant on what platform you're running than people seem to realize. I could be wrong, but I can say that for me the latest 64 bit versions of IE and Chrome both seriously fucking smoke.

I still haven't done much with HMTL 5 but I'm looking forward to someday (soon?) saying buh-bye to Adobe

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:45 pm

Uh, IE9 is the only 64 bit browser on Windows (not counting unofficial FF builds).

Link for Chrome's statement on 64 bit support: http://www.chromium.org/developers/desi ... it-support

Dd

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:04 pm

Ddrak wrote:Uh, IE9 is the only 64 bit browser on Windows (not counting unofficial FF builds).

Interesting. I naturally assumed I was getting the 64 bit versions of all 3 browsers. Looks like my friend was full of shit but I could swear I read the article he was talking about so maybe some news outlets are full of shit.

Does this mean that Microsoft has written their rendering engine in .NET for as long as they've been releasing 64 bit browsers? Doesn't seem like they'd keep 2 separate code bases. I've worked with MS a long fucken time and it's not their style.

So then if that's the case does that mean that Google is refusing to write their browser in .NET? That does sound like their style but I think it's going to put them at a disadvantage in the long run if they can't flip a switch and target whatever platform they want with the click of a mouse like I'm sure MS can.

Edit: And I see people getting "code running on a 64 bit machine" with "64 bit code running on a 64 bit machine" mixed up on a good day. And unfortunately for me on the back end most of my web apps have to run in 32 bit mode just so they can interact with legacy 32 bit COM code and 32 bit ODBC drivers that aren't available in 64 bit. Pain in the fucken ass.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:32 pm

I don't think even MS has written their rendering engine in .NET. I believe they have just been kinda careful and managed to write code that compiles properly in 32 and 64 bit modes. FF and Chrome don't really see the point as it splits their addon support and just makes life in general more difficult.

Personally, I hate it. I want to run a clean 64 bit system.

Dd

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:39 pm

Ditto.

And I've decided to take our oldest web app in production and section all the 32 bit COM code it has to call off into a 32 bit web service. That way the app can live as a 64 bit app!

We're seeing pretty good performance bumps running 64 bit code where we can on the back end. The 64 bit SQL server is a fine thing

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:22 am

Sounds like a pretty nice way to go. Ever looked at 64 bit COM, or more like us and avoided COM like the plague now?

Dd

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:10 pm

I haven't done anything new with COM since .NET first came out and made it obsolete. Now I just support it and only if I absolutely have to. It was an OK technology for its day and it served its purpose.

But damn, it sure suffered from performance issues most of its adult life. In fact they changed its name from OLE to COM to reflect that it was lighter weight.

I worked for a company in the late 90's which was partially owned by Paul Allen. So we had full access to the Windows dev team at a time when pretty much no one had access to those guys. We used to send them lists of questions and one of the questions I put forth was something like:

"We have found the performance of our OCX controls to be terrible and we've had rewrite most of the code to use our own component model, and my question is how much OLE are you guys using to develop Windows itself, and how have you dealt with the performance issues? We've decided it's unusable."

the reply was something like:

"We stopped using it too for the same reasons."

...so COM eventually got much better (and ATL was kind of nice) but it was always slower than it should've been and it never quite shook that perception. I'm not really going to miss it. And if somebody ever puts a gun to my head and makes me create a COM component then I can just flip a switch in my .NET assembly to make it COM-aware; best of both worlds.

Freecare Spiritwise · Post by **Freecare Spiritwise** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:20 pm

Had the big talk with the boss today about why all our 64 bit apps are running 32 bit and how they all need to have surgery to cut the 32 bit code out of them and move it off to web services. We have a new programmer starting Monday to start porting all these 32 bit VB6 controls to .NET but new programmers usually take a long time to get up to speed.So I'm hitting this 32 bit shit from two different angles.

Oh, and I'm a moron - it's official. Turns out I've been running 32 bit IE9 this whole time because the default icon it puts on the task bar is the 32 bit version. I just assumed that since I specifically downloaded the 64 bit version then that's all it gave me. It's always been this way so I don't know how I thought that all changed. I didn't see it on the help->about so I looked in the process list and it says "iexplore.exe * 32". Yep, confirmed.

Brell Rants

IE9

IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9

Re: IE9