(12-29-2014, 11:15 PM)Zezima link Wrote: Jerome is cool as fuck, would suck him of.
(12-30-2014, 12:37 AM)cake link Wrote: i like firefox as well but somehow i find it more difficult to find certain settings
What kind? I like the options menu on Firefox I find it very intuitive, especially the "customise" feature.
(12-29-2014, 10:12 AM)cake link Wrote: but but
64 bit!
I had a feeling you would be wet-dreaming over 64 bit. While I agree that 64 bit is advantageous over 32 bit, I am afraid that Google Chrome does better on 32 bit than 64 bit. This can be seen in the following test results:
Let’s look at the numbers. The first test is the Application Loading Time Test using a program called AppTimer. Both versions of Chrome were loaded and unloaded 10 times at 1000 ms intervals. Initially, Chrome 64-bit loaded faster than Chrome 32, but in the end Chrome 64-bit seemed to really slow down.
Peacekeeper, FutureMark’s JavaScript engine testing tool, was first used to test the two versions of Chrome. A JavaScript engine testing tool, is only going to tell us how well the browser deals with JavaScript. That’s important because so many functions of a website rely on JavaScript – animations, video, calculations, and working with data in general. If you want to learn more about just what JavaScript is, check out our article on that.
(
Source)
The information we ascertain from these tests is that 32 bit actually runs as well (or better) than 64 bit versions of Google Chrome.
Moving on from Chrome, to an issue raised from the undertone about Firefox lacking 64 bit, Mozilla have had a version of 64 bit in alpha for quite some time (public alpha) and now are set to release a stable version in March 2015, according to
this source; the 31st. However, there is a little known about project called
Waterfox that has already developed it's own spin on Firefox 64 bit using the Mozilla engine, which if you can't wait 3 months, may be of interest to you.