Thread replies: 31
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
Anonymous
Chrome now reloads pages 28% faster 2017-01-26 08:27:07 Post No. 58666470
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Chrome now reloads pages 28% faster 2017-01-26 08:27:07 Post No. 58666470
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1462003603749.jpg (184KB, 713x1036px) Image search:
[Google]
184KB, 713x1036px
How can Firecuck by SJWzilla even compete???
Why aren't you using Iridium or Ungoogled-Chromium (or any other Chromium-based browser), /g/?? Why are you still stuck with a browser that has 12% marketshare?
>Chrome now reloads pages 28% faster
>Typically, when you reload a page (and that’s a feature even the earliest browsers had), the browser ends up making hundreds of network requests just to see if the images and other resources it cached the first time you went to a site are still valid.
>As Google engineer Takashi Toyoshima notes in today’s announcement, users typically reload pages because they either look broken or because the content looks like it should have been updated (think old-school live blogs). He argues that when browser developers first added this feature, it was mostly because broken pages were common. Today, users mostly reload pages because the content of a site seems stale.
>To overcome this issue, the team simplified Chrome’s reload behavior and it now only validates the main resource. Facebook, just like other pages, says its pages now reload 28 percent faster, too, so the next time you want to check if your friends finally posted new pictures of their cute corgis to Facebook (and you are using the web app instead of the native FB app), you’ll now get the answer faster.
>>
>>58666470
>reloads
and nothing of value was gained
>>
>2017
>not dynamically updating the content of your website
>>
File: C9WRARV.gif (59KB, 182x249px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 182x249px
>>58666493
>2017
>paying exorbitant bandwidth fees instead of offloading as much as possible onto Akamai
>>
File: 1458442880152.jpg (11KB, 268x237px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 268x237px
>>58666484
retard, what do you think you browser does when you're shitposting on 4chan and wasting your youth on arguing with other retards? Yes, it does a shitton of resource reloading as you're looking for that perfect thread to shitpost to.
>>
>>58666470
it still downloads binary blobs you fucking Google shill
>>
>>58666548
Iridium and Ungoogled don't download shit.
>>
>>58666470
What I really want is to add the current version of the page to the back stack before reloading. So if I reload an article to see if it's been updated, and find that it's been deleted or redacted instead, I could press back to see the version my browser had cached.
>>
>>58666569
So what about fucking unstoppable DRM and flash updates?
>>
i'll consider moving to chromium once it has;
- a scrollable tab bar
- tabs that load upon view after starting the browser
until then, it's unusable
>>
>>58666713
>tabs that load upon view after starting the browser
Has that already
>>
>prefetching
Sad!
>>
File: 1473073218506.png (13KB, 366x281px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 366x281px
>>58666647
Iridium/Chromium/Ungoogled don't come with DRM nor do they come with flash. They only come with a chromium PDF viewer plugin. that's it. pic related.
>>
>>58666730
i'll have a look
what about a scrollable tab bar? or more specifically, tabs that have a minimum width and will go off-screen, rather than just bunching together until they're no longer recognizable
>>
>>58666756
>what about a scrollable tab bar?
Nope
>>
>>58666800
i know for a fact i'm not the only one who has a problem with this
i wonder if it's really that hard to make a patch for this
>>
>>58666835
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=188
heh, 2008
is this the next "thumbnails in gtk file picker" bug report?
>>
>>58666470
I like user control and privacy over 28% increase speed.
>>
>>58666602
Fuck yes! Make browser history worthwhile again! At the moment it's little more than a list of urls you can open again, why not cache the last few webpages in RAM.
But I guess muh javascript makes it too difficult :(
As to the OP, might as well be titled "Google abolishes true reload function of Chrome" because that's what this is
>>
>>58666900
>I like user control and privacy
So you use Firefox from 2012?
>>
>>58666470
I'll use Firefox until the company collapses
>>
>>58666916
>I'll use Firefox for three months
>>
File: Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 2.59.18 PM.png (14KB, 274x96px) Image search:
[Google]
14KB, 274x96px
>>58666905
>might as well be titled "Google abolishes true reload function of Chrome" because that's what this is
Not really
>>
>>58666916
>2000 + 17
>not using Pale Meme
>>
>>58666952
>pale meme
That's just an outdated firefox. FF runs as fast as chromium last time I tested them. I see no reason to switch to anything else.
>>
>>58666470
>we cut reload functionality
>well what do you know, doing less stuff is faster
>>
>>58666923
>"how can Firefox even compete, Mozilla is finished, freetards BTFO!" - chromecucks 2008-present
>>
I don't reload pages if the page is broken I shift+reload to forcibly redownload the content. If the page loads then I read what's there and then leave.
>>
>>58666470
What the fuck does it matter to an Autistic bitch like you?
>>
>>58666916
>I'll use Firefox until the company collapses
You won't have to wait long. FF will become even shittier soon as Mozilla (or whatever the fuck they call themselves now) abandons XUL extensions and allow only chrome-style extensions. All the reasons why people stuck with FF will disappear overnight.
>>58666952
>Pale Meme
Rebreanded and older bag of shit is still shit.
>>
File: Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 3.17.11 PM.png (68KB, 735x271px) Image search:
[Google]
68KB, 735x271px
>>58666995
>implying they weren't right
Thread posts: 31
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6