Stevo985 Posted March 2, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted March 2, 2013 As much as I mock people who argue about Browsers, I must admit that Chrome is head and shoulders above the rest, imo. Explore the web apps for it. Some of them are excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 These days pretty much everything is Javascript, only very boring web sites and pages use no javascript, so you need a browser than can parse and execute it fast. Chrome is massively faster than the rest at doing this. Also, the heavy caching it does and the huge memory requirements due to the sandboxing make it very fast but very resource hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 These days pretty much everything is Javascript, only very boring web sites and pages use no javascript, so you need a browser than can parse and execute it fast. And on most websites it's utterly pointless, stopping the scripts running gets rid of tonnes of annoyances, improves security, and it's fairly rare for it to stop the site functioning properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 You must go to some pretty basic web sites then. I assume you don't use the WYSIWIG text editor on here? Google Maps, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, BBC? In fact, pretty much any popular web site out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 3, 2013 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 3, 2013 The next version of Opera will be Chrome's rendering and ECMAscript engine but with Opera's UI (and I believe BOF found that Opera could do bookmark UI correctly)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 These days pretty much everything is Javascript, only very boring web sites and pages use no javascript, so you need a browser than can parse and execute it fast. And on most websites it's utterly pointless, stopping the scripts running gets rid of tonnes of annoyances, improves security, and it's fairly rare for it to stop the site functioning properly.It depends on the websites.If I tried writing the websites we develop at work without javascript they'd be 10x harder to use.The asynchronous loading that ajax calls give you enable you to give immediate user feedback without having to wait for entire pages to reload because you changed one dropdown or sort order so a grid needs to refresh.I wouldn't dream of writing a website without making extensive use of ajax these days, because it simply makes for a much better user experience.If you're just dealing with static content you can get away without it, but for anything that allows user interaction it's a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 These days pretty much everything is Javascript, only very boring web sites and pages use no javascript, so you need a browser than can parse and execute it fast. And on most websites it's utterly pointless, stopping the scripts running gets rid of tonnes of annoyances, improves security, and it's fairly rare for it to stop the site functioning properly. It depends on the websites. If I tried writing the websites we develop at work without javascript they'd be 10x harder to use. The asynchronous loading that ajax calls give you enable you to give immediate user feedback without having to wait for entire pages to reload because you changed one dropdown or sort order so a grid needs to refresh. I wouldn't dream of writing a website without making extensive use of ajax these days, because it simply makes for a much better user experience. If you're just dealing with static content you can get away without it, but for anything that allows user interaction it's a necessity. Yep, the days of static client server interaction of over, AJAX changed everything. Even this site (in the nicest way as forums are generally pretty static) uses some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 4, 2013 You're missing the point. It's not about 'disabling javascript' although you could if you want. You might load a website that has 20 scripts activated within it - and you only become aware of them after they're loaded. 99% of the time all scripts are fine. But you might visit sites like the streaming ones where many scripts are at best ambiguous in their intentions and unnecessary to the purpose of your visit and you'd rather they not run on your machine. NoScript, by default, disables everything on a page and you allow the scripts one by one (and it remembers for next time), or you can 'allow all' for certain websites that you trust. It gives you complete control over what a webpage runs on your machine. As I said, most of the time you just 'allow all' but it's nice to have the option to control the less savoury websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 You're missing the point. It's not about 'disabling javascript' although you could if you want. You might load a website that has 20 scripts activated within it - and you only become aware of them after they're loaded. 99% of the time all scripts are fine. But you might visit sites like the streaming ones where many scripts are at best ambiguous in their intentions and unnecessary to the purpose of your visit and you'd rather they not run on your machine. NoScript, by default, disables everything on a page and you allow the scripts one by one (and it remembers for next time), or you can 'allow all' for certain websites that you trust. It gives you complete control over what a webpage runs on your machine. As I said, most of the time you just 'allow all' but it's nice to have the option to control the less savoury websites. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with Davkaus's statement that javascript is utterly pointless on the majority of web sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2013 Scenario. I have 1,167 gmail emails and I want to archive all bar the most recent 100. So I add those 100 to a label 'temp'. They disappear from the inbox. Fine. I then select the remaining 1,067 emails and 'archive' them. Fine. I then go to my 'temp' label and select all and 'remove label'. This should put them back into my inbox but it hasn't. Umm, where are they? They're obviously and correctly not in my archive. But now I can't find them. Help? I've now got zero gmail emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted March 6, 2013 "Move to Inbox"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2013 EDIT : I've now done an "All mail" search of "after:2012/3/6 before:2014/3/7" and it has brought back 27 emails that belong to other labels i.o.w. not the missing emails. I'm beginning to think I've misunderstood the term 'label' to in fact mean 'folder' and I've removed the emails contained within 'temp' folder. I'd expect to see them in the trash though and they're not there. GMail you definitely ain't as intuitive as you could be."Move to Inbox"?There's nothing to move to inbox. Despite 'remove label' of temp, temp still exists and the emails are gone and they're not in the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2013 I've got it. I did a search of nothing in all mail. I now have 1,755 emails and I'll start from scratch. This is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Ctrl & A. Delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2013 I ended up doing it the other way around.Select all 1,167. Move them all to temp.Hand pick the ones I want in my inbox. Move them to inbox and remove their 'temp' label.You now have a 'temp' label full of the crap to delete.It's just a little vague in gmail as to where an email actually resides. The fact an email can belong in multiple places simultaneously or in no places at all (without being deleted) makes it trickier to move stuff around effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 You aren't moving things around in Gmail though, you are tagging them and the tags are what get filtered. That way you can have things in multiple boxes if you want. It's not like Hotmail where you have to choose one virtual box over another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted March 6, 2013 Question about external batteries... I've had one for a while and it's jolly handy for long trips with my Nexus 4, but it's physically quite big (bigger than the phone). I'm looking for a smaller one that I can use on short trips. About 70mm x 70mm max - I want to put it in that weenie extra front pocket on my jeans. I'm going around in circles on Google. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 6, 2013 Administrator Share Posted March 6, 2013 I have one of these. It does the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 6, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 6, 2013 You aren't moving things around in Gmail though, you are tagging them and the tags are what get filtered. That way you can have things in multiple boxes if you want. It's not like Hotmail where you have to choose one virtual box over another.I know. But because of the multi or 'none' thing, it can become inherently less clear where to find something. Things can go missing when it's possible to remove them from everywhere. I know it's a different way of doing things. It probably explains why I prefer file systems to databases when coming at them from a user interface point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 6, 2013 Administrator Share Posted March 6, 2013 They're always in "All mail" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts