151–160 of 487 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Left side is actually sharp, with subpixel smoothing. Right side is awful (just like many parts of post-Vista Windows) with apparent grayscale AA. This is something they actually got right; it's one thing that was terrible about IE and the old Edge, and that I'd bet was subconsciously turning many people off (in my case, consciously making me want to tear my eyes out). If you can't see the difference, open dev consol…
All in all, I'd say the one on the left is more pleasant to read and easier on the eyes, despite being "thinner". The jagged edges on the right feel on my eyes like the sound of relentless blackboard scratching.
I have published some of my extensions for the new Edge browser on their store [1], the submission experience was straightforward and pleasant, and the extensions were published in a couple of days after manual review. Updates were also reviewed and published in a timely manner. More importantly, during extension submissions and reviews I did not feel abused as a developer, something which I cannot say about the Chro…
Phrasing it as a dichotomy like that is pretty dishonest, especially how Firefox is twice as popular than Edge [1] and is free open source software that doesn't spy on you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Su...
What happened with font rendering? Fonts are rendered with thinner lines in new Edge (on the left): http://terrainformatica.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IE-fo... Such rendering does not match rest of Windows... New Edge is definitely less readable, and Google Chrome exhibits the same problem.
I have published some of my extensions for the new Edge browser on their store [1], the submission experience was straightforward and pleasant, and the extensions were published in a couple of days after manual review. Updates were also reviewed and published in a timely manner. More importantly, during extension submissions and reviews I did not feel abused as a developer, something which I cannot say about the Chro…
Wonder why... Microsoft: developers, developers, developers, developers! Google: advertisers, advertisers, advertisers, advertisers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cynical thought: in no way am I claiming this was the only reason for Microsoft choosing Blink, but it’s probably easier to find and replace Google analytics APIs with Microsoft endpoints than it is to add them into a code base after the fact.
Chromium is not the same as Google Chrome. Chromium is open source and vendor neutral. Google Chrome adds the Google stuff on top of it. Both chromium and Firefox can be customized and vendor branded (see the countless privacy oriented browsers built on top of Firefox).
That's pretty misleading. When you want to sync state across Chromium installs, you use a Google account, and that's really just scratching the surface.
Chromium comes with quite a bit of Google baked-in.
I'm glad to see this, and I hope it's a strong competitor. Stronger competition pushes everyone and we end up with better results as users. That said, browser debates often come off like the Nintendo versus Sega arguments I remember as a kid. It's funny how people become married to one.
We have effectively lost a competitor. Microsoft is now contributing to Chrome development. The best long-term outcome for the web would arguably to have been for Microsoft to put more resources into their in-house EdgeHTML browser instead of throwing it out and reskinning Chrome.
Let's say Google says they don't like some privacy feature because it hurts their bottom line in terms of ad revenue. So they decide not to have that in Chrome.
Sure, people could switch to in-house Edge or Firefox. But they don't want to switch, because for whatever reason, Google is better able to make a browser that people like. Attested to by the tiny market share Edge has (and fairly small share Firefox has, notwithstanding its popularity within the HN community).
Switching to Chromium based Edge is a much easier move for users, assuming Microsoft decides to second-guess Google's decision, which they can do easily and have strong incentives to do -- keeping in mind that the number one complaint people have about Chrome is that they don't trust Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to make it worse, just not make it better. Almost no one ever says "I love using such-and-such a website, the adverts on the side are just so relevant".
When I'm looking for something , relevant ads are great. Ads that were relevant to something I was looking for a month ago? Not so much.
So... What's the value proposition over, say, Firefox?