Pages

June 30, 2013

The Google Reader countdown — where to go now for your RSS fix?


By on June 29, 2013 - Tags:
We've known about the closure of Google Reader for some time now, but the deadline is now upon us. The ticking of the clock is getting louder so if you're yet to choose which RSS service you are going to pledge your allegiance to instead, now is the time to make your decision. You might be cutting it a little fine, but there's still time to switch to a service that can import all of your existing feeds so you can get up and running in next to no time.
There have always been plenty of RSS readers to choose from, but with the demise of Google Reader well-known names and new ones have started to come out of the woodwork. I thought I'd take a look at the main contenders -- and a few others -- to see which came out on top.

Digg Reader

News aggregator Digg is one of the more recent contenders in the news reader arena. The reader has been promised for some time, and has just been unleashed on beta testers - Martin took a look at this just the other day and summed up its shortcomings very nicely.
As things stand, this is in no way a replacement for Google Reader. Sure, it's a good-looking tool and as it's currently in beta there is potential for things to improve, but it does fail as a reader. Organisation of feeds is awkward and cumbersome, and while aesthetically Digg Reader scores well, the lack of an import feature and limited customisation options mean that this is far from being a poweruser's tool.
On the plus side, there is already an iOS app available for anyone looking to get an RSS fix on the move, with an Android version in the pipeline.
digg reader reading

CommaFeed

Commafeed proudly declares itself to be bloat-free and it's hard to argue with that statement. Simple and minimalist are words that spring to mind, and this is no bad thing for anyone who had become used to the look and feel of Google Reader. Any Google castoffs will be pleased to find that there is an import option available so there's no need to manually reconfigure feeds.
You can be up and running in a matter of moments, and while it may initially appear that CommaFeed does not have a huge number of options, it does boast one interesting feature that makes it stand out from the crowd -- the ability to apply your own style sheet to give the site a completely new look. Feature-wise, things are kept simple, but again there are some nice touches.
There's the obligatory 'Mark all as read' button if you need to catch up after a spell away from your computer and actually reading through all of your feeds seems like too daunting a task. But there are also links to mark only items older than a day, those older than a week or those older than a fortnight as read. It's a little thing, but it's the kind of feature that can make all the difference.
Fans of keyboard shortcuts will be pleased to find that there are plenty here to help speed up common tasks, and the transition from Google Reader should be an easy one. There's also a data export option in case you should try out CommaFeed for a while and then decide to switch to another service. With a raft of sharing options for individual feed items, the only real disappointment with CommaFeed is the lack of mobile apps -- but the Firefox and Chrome extensions are very welcome.
commafeed

NewsBlur

With Android and iOS apps available this is another alternative that's worth a look. It works in a slightly different way to some other readers, and gives you the option of following your Facebook and Twitter contacts and a means of uncovering additional articles you may be interested in. There is a degree of AI built in and this should mean that stories you are more interested in should be given greater prominence than those that are likely to be less appealing.
It is worth bearing in mind that the free version of the service is limited. If you want to be able to work with an unlimited number of RSS feeds -- and who wants to work with limits? -- you'll have to part with $24 per year. If you stick with the free version of the site, you'll have to make do with no more than 64 sites. At the moment -- possibly as a result of everyone seeking out a replacement for Google Reader -- there is a waiting list. Of course, you can jump the queue by handing over your credit card details and signing up for a year. You can try before you buy which is a great because the old school interface - which is not a million miles away from an ancient version of Outlook Express -- is not going to be to everyone's taste.
newsblur

Feed Wrangler

In my mind, news should be free. I'm not opposed to paying for software and service that are worthwhile, but if I am going to have to part with my money, I certainly need to be able to try out a service -- there aren't many things you would buy blind, and there's no reason for web-based services to be any different.
What irks here is that there is no chance to try out the service without parting with some money. Like the idea of trying out a feed reader that offers smart filtering based on keywords, a clean and minimalist look and easy importing from Google Reader? Feed Wrangler has all this and more. This is a relative newcomer to the world of RSS, and there are companion mobile apps available, but you can't help but feel that some sort of trial tariff would have helped users and the site alike.

Feedly

This is the Google Reader rival that is getting by far the most attention -- including from myself. From the beginning this was an accomplished freed reader, but a completely overhauled back end means that there is a completely seamless transition from Google Reader to Feedly. Feed are easily imported and adding new sources takes nothing more than pasting the relevant URL in place or search through a fairly comprehensive feed directory.
There are four views to choose from, including the minimalist Title Only mode which closely resembles Reader. Great attention to detail is present through the web interface, and everything possible has been done to ensure that the best possible use is made of space. Gone is the permanently present navigation bar to the left of the screen, replaced by an elegant slide-out panel that's only visible when needed.
As with CommaFeed, there are various options for catching up with articles over a certain age, and there are a huge number of setting available that mean that Feedly can be perfectly tailored to our preferences.
Sharing options are plentiful with support for everything from Facebook and Twitter to Google+ and Buffer. In addition to the familiar method of organising a collection of feeds into folders, there's an extremely useful tagging feature that proves immensely useful when conducting research for a project as it allows for easy organisation on the fly.
Feedly has undergone a great deal of development and feels like the most polished and well-rounded tool in this group. Mobile apps are available free of charge
feedly cloud

Newsvibe

A clean, uncluttered interface is what it's all about over at Newsvibe. To get a few of my pet peeves out of the way; Newsvibe is free -- check. It is free of charge -- check. There's an easy way to import Google Reader (or other) feeds -- check, check check. The importing of data is not necessarily as smooth as it could be, but it is not so long winded as to be off-putting.
Once up and running, you'll find Newvibe to be, well, basic. The interface is extremely spartan leaving you free to focus on what's important -- the feeds you have subscribed to. There are sharing options aplenty. Regulars such as Twitter and Facebook are present as you would expect, but in addition to Pinterest there is support for a staggering 300+ sharing services.  If you can’t find what you're looking for here, your tastes but be really quite niche.
But Newsvibe is basic. Article starring is about the most advanced feature you can expect to find here. There are no different views to choose from, just the option to show or hide the navigation sidebar. Folders can be used for organisational purposes, but that's it in terms of features. It is both beautiful and beautifully simple.
newsvibe

Pulse

Pulse takes a very visual, magazine inspired approach to things. Much like Flipboard, you're encouraged to find new sources of news and entertainment by expressing your interests so that news and can be personalised for you. It is something that will appear familiar to anyone who has ever used Flipboard and similar services, but it not something that is going to work for everyone
I for one am only interesting in viewing articles published on sites I have explicitly chosen to follow. I'm not interested in having suggestion for things I might like to read, or sites I might want to consider following in the future.
Feeds are organised in a way that does not make sense -- to me at least. Pulse attempts to determine which stories are likely to be of most interest to you, and pushes these to the top of the queue so you don’t miss them. This does create a somewhat homogenised news experience which goes against the way RSS feeds and news reading should work. The magaziney look may be attractive to some, but this is a completely different beast to Google Reader. Mobile apps are available and these closely resemble the web version of Pulse.
pulse

The Old Reader

The original alternative to Google Reader. It may not be finished -- it's still in beta testing at the moment -- but it's going strong and it is a solid and reliable tool. If you're making the switch from Google Reader, or any other RSS service for that matter, you'll have to ensure that you have backed up your data to an OPML file so that it can be imported. There's no automated option which is something of a shame, but it shouldn't be a dealbreaker.
Adding new feeds requires you to know the precise URL -- there's no search feature or feed directory to browse through. This is a bit of a pain, but the rest of the site works so well, I'm prepared to ease up a little.
Despite the fact that the interface is quite simple, at the same time The Old Reader has a tendency to look a little cluttered. With large headlines, a plethora of buttons and numerous tags scattered all over the place, it's actually quite a distracting experience trying to work through news stories.
There's a social aspect to the service and this opens up sharing options as well as potential to follow and be followed. This can be a useful way to discover new stories and sources of news, but features like this are distractions for anyone who is a diehard Google Reader user who just wants to get the job done with a minimum of fuss.
Powerusers and speed freaks will welcome the wide range of keyboard shortcuts but it's a shame to find that there are no mobile apps. If you are managing a huge number of feeds, the search function is worth its weight in gold, and the Trending section can serve as a 'useful distraction' when you're looking for a way to productively kill a little time.
The transition from Google Reader is simple thanks to the very shallow learning curve.
theoldreader
Other Alternatives
  • AOL Reader shows as much promise as Digg Reader but has its shortcomings as well and is clearly a beta product.
  • FeedSpot Alan's favorite choice for now even though it is also only available as a beta.
  • Go Read has just been released. It tries to mimic Google Reader as much as possible.
  • InoReader is a fast RSS reader that offers a web-based mobile version as well but no apps at the time of writing.
  • MultiPlx feels snappy as soon as you switch to the title view mode that the developers have integrated into the application. It displays articles in an overlay though.
Without review
Self-hosted RSS readers

In Conclusion

So... where to go? As ever it really depends on what you are looking for. If you're looking for something that closely resembles the Google Reader of old, the likes of Feedly and The Older Reader are likely to be of interest. But there are numerous web services that work in a magazine style like Pulse which is great if you're looking for something lighter on text and heavier on graphics
To some extent the reader you end up using will depend on the type of feeds you follow. If you're looking for a quick and easy way to scan as many headlines as possible as quickly as possible with few distractions, a more text oriented service such as Feed Wrangler or CommaFeed could be what you’re looking for.
The next thing to bear in mind is how and where you want to be able to access your newsfeeds. Using a desktop tool is great if you're looking for a particular user experience, but sticking with a web app makes more sense if you're going to be accessing feeds on multiple computers.
Obviously there is a degree of crossover here. My personal favourite, Feedly, falls into several categories, and this is true of many Google Reader alternatives.
Perhaps the final thing to consider is whether or not you'll be looking for a mobile app rather than just a mobile version of a website. This could well be the deciding factor for you. If you are a long-term Google Reader user there have been numerous iOS and Android apps that you could use to check your feeds.
With the market now far more fragmented, and each service using its own API and backups, it is far more difficult to divide your loyalties. To keep things simple, and keep things in sync, you really need to pick a service that has a web app and mobile app that you like.
For me the choice is clear. Feedly offers a flexible, customisable and speedy website and decent Android and iOS apps to boot. But it's not going to be up everyone's street so if you’re still testing the waters it might be a good idea to back up your Google Reader data while you still have chance so that it can be imported into whichever service you decide to give you custom to.

Source:  http://www.ghacks.net/2013/06/29/the-google-reader-countdown-where-to-go-for-you-rss-fix/

Four alternatives to Google Reader

Four alternatives to Google Reader

On Wednesday, Google announced it was shutting down several services, including its popular Reader application. The company cites declining usage and a shift toward a smaller selection of Google services.
Naturally, Reader's impending shutdown has sparked discussion on whether this marks the end of Really Simple Syndication (RSS), content feeds users can follow on readers such as Google's software.
But social networks such as Facebook and Twitter have played a big role in how we consume content. Now that users can follow websites through social outlets, RSS is becoming less popular.
That's no consolation for the many users who love Google Reader, which is a great way to follow multiple websites within one destination. Fortunately, there are alternatives. Here's a look at four of them:

Feedly. This free RSS reader combines the organizational qualities of Google's software with a magazine-style design. Feeds are easy to add and organize, while a Today tab makes it simple to scroll through the latest news of the day. Feedly is available as extensions on the Chrome, Firefox and Safari browsers, and there are mobile apps for Android and iOS. If you prefer the traditional list view of headlines in Google Reader, Feedly allows you to adjust. Although the service relies on Google Reader's API, developers say they are creating their own version that will take its place when Reader shuts down July 1.

Pulse. Another visually friendly reader with complimentary Android and iOS apps, Pulse delivers content in a tile format, with stories appearing in a series of photo tiles. Click on a link with image and read the fuller story. Once in the full read mode, users can tap the left or right arrows to move to the next story. Twitter and Facebook buttons sit on top for quick sharing. The process for adding feeds is similar to Google, although Pulse does not appear to have an option for importing Google Reader feeds. When logging in for the first time, users can also opt to follow specific subjects, such as sports, technology or politics.

Flipboard. The "social magazine" for iOS and Android boasts a gorgeous design similar to a digital magazine. Users swipe left to right to navigate as if they're turning the pages of a magazine. Along with adding RSS feeds, users can add their Facebook and Twitter feeds to give them a more dynamic, visually appealing experience. The only drawback is the service is mobile only, so look elsewhere if you want a Web-based option.

Twitter. Yes, this isn't a RSS reader, but the social network is a solid "outside the box" alternative for users wanting to keep up with the news. My approach is creating Lists based on topic and adding accounts I follow. So, I may have one List for tech news and another for business news. It's a great way to separate them from your standard feed, especially if you follow a lot of accounts. Another advantage: users can choose Twitter's primary site and mobile apps, or choose from several Twitter clients for the browser, smartphone or tablet. While users lose the ability to read cleaner versions of articles without visiting the source website, it's a solid option if you're already comfortable with Twitter.

Update at 10:57 a.m.: Among some other options to consider: NetVibes, NewsBlur and Skimr. Thanks to readers for weighing in.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/03/14/google-reader-alternatives/1986865/

June 27, 2013

DIY services for creating simple websites - from Windows Secrets

DIY services for creating simple websites
Lincoln SpectorBy Lincoln Spector
There are many good reasons to build a website yourself, including avoiding the substantial costs of hiring designers and developers.
Here are two services that make the process of creating a custom site relatively quick and easy; and if your needs are modest, they're free.
It's now axiomatic that every business, service, and organization needs a presence on the Web. It's the place potential customers, clients, members, etc. expect to find you. Not so long ago, your options for creating a website were: pay someone, take the time to learn some HTML and/or a page-creation app such as Microsoft's now-defunct FrontPage, or use one of the stock templates offered by a few Web-hosting services.
That last option often looked attractive — until you ran up against the limitations of the templates.
Today, even simple sites aren't simple. Static webpages have given way to database-driven dynamic ones. Better sites now support both desktop and mobile layouts — and know when to use one or the other. Security is also more complex. Without the proper protections, your site might be hijacked and turned into a malware-delivery system. (That experience drove me away from my own handmade sites years ago.) And the cost of hiring designers and developers hasn't gotten any cheaper.
So for small sites, the best solution is still to use one of the do-it-yourself website-creation and -hosting services. Fortunately, their templates and tools have improved significantly, giving you more control over the look and function of your site.
There are, of course, a few disadvantages to using these services. For example, you can't easily move your site from one hosting service to another. And if you're selling something online, the service might tack on fees or limit customers' payment options.
Some services focus on one type of Internet activity. Blogger (site), for example, is limited to — obviously — blogging. That's fine, if that's all you want. WordPress (site) is another platform used extensively for blogging, but it's capable of much more — if you have the expertise. WordPress hosts both my relatively simple Bayflicks.net blog and the fairly complex WindowsSecrets.com.
There are numerous DIY website-creation services available. After looking at several, I picked two that give you considerable control — via intuitive drag-and-drop tools — over your website layout. You can also add social-networking icons, contact forms, photos — and even blogs.
Both services let you create a free — though quite limited — site. The free option might be fine for a personal site, but for a business/organization site, you'll want the flexibility and features of a paid account. Without shelling out some money, you won't be able to use a specific domain name, sell products, or keep the service from advertising itself on your pages.
Before signing up with any DIY-website service (especially for business sites), read its user-license agreement carefully. In most cases, moving from one service to another will require rebuilding the site. Moreover, the domain name you've been using might not be transferable — moving to another service could mean losing your own URL. (If you bought a domain name elsewhere, let the service host it — you'll always be able to move it.)
Weebly: Simple and mobile-friendly
Weebly (site) makes creating a site relatively easy for those of us lacking HTML-coding and Web-design skills. But it also offers a good selection of advanced webpage elements plus tools for displaying your site on small screens.
As with most DIY-website services, creating a new site starts with selecting a template. Weebly offers dozens of templates (See Figure 1) in its Theme Gallery. By default, all themes are displayed, which can be a lot to go through. Fortunately, you can filter the offerings by clicking a category such as Bold, Corporate, Fun, or Simple.
If you edit a theme and decide it's not working for you, you can easily change it later.
Weebly templates
Figure 1. Weebly's many website themes provide the starting point for a new site.
Once you've selected a template, you personalize it: change colors and fonts; add text by clicking the text boxes and editing the contents; and move, delete, or add webpage elements from template toolbars. The wide variety of elements and formatting options includes titles, text boxes, images, text boxes with images, photo galleries, slideshows, maps, and contact forms. You can also insert more advanced elements such as social-networking icons and polls, as shown in Figure 2.
Weebly toolbar
Figure 2. New elements are inserted on a webpage by simply dragging them from the toolbars.
While building my new Weebly-based site, I found that not everything worked smoothly. The title area proved difficult to reformat — I couldn't add a line of smaller-font text below my name. I had to place that text elsewhere on the page — not exactly the layout I wanted.
Some formatting elements are available only with a paid account — an on-page search box, for example. Other pay-only features include slideshows with headers, the ability to remove Weebly's logo, and converting video to Weebly's HTML5 format. (Using HTML5 can eliminate the need for Adobe Flash when the video is played in a browser.)
On a desktop screen, your Weebly-based site will look just as you designed it. You can see my final design at the Weebly site. On a smartphone, it'll have a simpler layout, better suited to small screens — as you'll see if you visit the site on your phone. You can, however, further tweak the mobile layout to your own satisfaction (see Figure 3).
Mobility options
Figure 3. Weebly automatically adjusts your site for small screens — or you can use the mobility options for more refinements.
By default, you get a subdomain of weebly.com. For example, my site is http://windowssecretstest.weebly.com/. You can also create a real domain name — as I'm reminded every time I change and republish my site — or transfer a domain name you already own. (This also works with the free service, though of course, you'll have to continue paying for the domain separately.)
Weebly's professional version costs U.S. $59 for six months, $99 per year, or $159 for two years. A more limited Starter plan costs about half as much, but it lacks search and other features.
Wix: Good-looking designs, right from the start
As with Weebly, you start your new Wix website by selecting a template. Wix's templates are, however, better organized than Weebly's, making it easier to find the right one for your needs.
Wix (site) also has a much larger selection of templates. Narrowing my selection down to Computing & Apps, a subdivision of Business & Services, I was offered 32 templates, most of them professionally designed. With Wix, you pretty much start out with a great-looking website.
Wix templates
Figure 4. Wix offers an impressive selection of well-organized templates.
Each Wix template includes a price — disheartening until you realize that the price for nearly all templates is Free. The others are priced as "eCommerce" (see Figure 5), which is rather confusing at first. It means you can't use the template's e-commerce functionality without a paid account.
Wix templates
Figure 5. Wix's pricing terminology can be mystifying initially.
Wix's well-designed templates come at an additional cost. Once you've picked one, you're stuck with it, for the most part. There's a complicated process for changing templates, but it's available only with a paid account.
When you're ready to personalize your site, Wix's editing screen works well — despite the beta logo in the upper-left corner of the editing screen. According to a Wix representative, the "HTML5 editor is still officially in beta…. We launched it March 2012, and it's still being refined and developed….")
The editing tools and widgets are plentiful, generally intuitive, and easy to find. You can insert buttons, menus, images, image galleries, social networking icons, lists, and so on. To edit text, you click a text box and then click Edit Text in the popup menu. Big buttons let you move between preview and edit modes.
There are a few imperfections with the tools. Resizing or cropping an image was a confusing pain. Making changes by grabbing image corners and sides had unpredictable results. Let's hope that's on the list of beta fixes.
Wix tools
Figure 6. Wix's clean design makes it easy to find and apply new webpage elements.
Wix's mobile makeover doesn't match Weebly's. On a phone, my site looks just like the desktop version — except it's tiny and hard to read. A mobile navigation option makes it easy to move from one illegible page to another.
Wix mobile version
Figure 7. Wix does a poor job of automatically reformatting sites for small screens.
Wix offers numerous subscriptions, depending on what you need and are willing to pay. Fifty dollars a year will get you Google Analytics, support, and the use of a real domain name. To remove the Wix logo, you have to pay more. A full e-commerce site will set you back nearly $200 a year (or more if you want to pay monthly).
With free subscriptions, you can't use your own domain name — even if you already own it.
Wix can help you create a great-looking site, but its limitations can be frustrating. You'll find my test site at http://lincolnspector.wix.com/windowssecretstest.
Best of breed: Of the nine DIY website services I tested, Weebly and Wix were the best. The two services are about equally easy to use, but with its extensive library of templates, Wix will likely give you the better-looking desktop website. Weebly, on the other hand, is a better bet if you want a site that looks good on both the big screen and a phone.
The drawbacks of Weebly and Wix are typical of all DIY website services. Others have different sets of tools and options as well as different user experiences. I suggest you try their free versions first to determine your comfort level. Remember: Once you've built your site at one service, moving it to another could be painful.

Source: https://windowssecrets.com/newsletter/diy-services-for-creating-simple-websites/

June 22, 2013

Firefox Australis Redesigned Theme

News of the upcoming October Firefox 25 release and new softer Australis default theme, made this developer come up with a theme now. You can download it now on Firefox 21. You can get fine results even when running Windows XP, as I am below. Below are my results and a link to get it below. Enjoy.





You can get the theme here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/australis-redesigned/?src=cb-dl-users

June 21, 2013

Internet Explorer Usage Skyrockets As Google Chrome Continues Decline

Internet Explorer Usage Skyrockets As Google Chrome Continues Decline

SHARE:
Adjust text size:






Internet Explorer remains the number one browser on the market, as Microsoft’s in-house product continued its growth last month to reach a record 55.99 percent market share.


Statistics provided by market researcher Net Applications reveal that Internet Explorer 10 was the main catalyst of this impressive growth, as the new version of the browser jumped to a 9.26 percent last month.

IE8 continues to top the rankings with 22.9 percent, followed by IE9 with 15.39 percent.

While Internet Explorer usage has clearly skyrocketed in the last few months, not the same thing can be said about Google Chrome, one of the most popular browsers on the market right now.

According to the same figures, Chrome’s market share has dropped from 16.35 percent in April to only 15.74 percent in May, even though Google launched a new version of the browser.

As far as Mozilla Firefox is concerned, it’s still on the podium with a market share of 20.63 percent in May 2013, up 0.23 percent versus the month before.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has even more goodies prepared for Internet Explorer fans.

The upcoming Windows release, simply called Windows 8.1, is going to feature a brand new Internet Explorer version that would obviously come with plenty of enhancements.

In addition to significantly improved touch support, Internet Explorer 11 is also expected to comprise new options, such as tab syncing to synchronize tabs across multiple Windows 8.1 devices.

At the same time, Microsoft promises that the future Internet Explorer version will be faster than its predecessors, while also paying particular attention to security and privacy.

As you can see, only little is known about the upcoming Internet Explorer version, but more details will be provided to users later this month, as the software giant is set to unveil the public preview of Windows 8.1 at the BUILD developer conference on June 26.

Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Internet-Explorer-Usage-Skyrockets-as-Google-Chrome-Continues-Decline-357886.shtml

Mozilla is planning a major design overhaul with the release of Firefox 25

Mozilla is planning a major design overhaul with the release of Firefox 25 in October: Here’s a quick peek

Mozilla is planning a major design overhaul of its flagship browser with the release of Firefox 25, slated to arrive in October. The company makes a point to discuss its plans for changes openly, and this upcoming new version is by no means an exception.
In fact, even though Firefox 22 is in the Beta channel, Firefox 23 is in the Aurora channel, and Firefox 24 is in the Nightly channel, Mozilla has set up a special Nightly UX channel for Firefox 25. Naturally, we went out and grabbed it; the latest Firefox release is on top and the new user interface is at the bottom:




The biggest change comes down to the new look for tabs or the complete revamp of the main Firefox menu. Actually, we’d probably side with the latter since the menu is being moved from the left to the right, and it will be apparently accessed via a button that looks nearly identical to Google Chrome’s hot dog icon.
There’s more; here are the major changes that are slated for this release:
  • Curved tabs.
  • Remove tab affordance from background tabs.
  • Separate Bookmark Star from locationBar and merge with Bookmarks Menu item.
  • Updated Panel Based Application Menu and Customization Mode.
  • Windows (All): Draw entire window frame including Caption Buttons.
  • Windows XP: Custom window frame style for all default themes.
Other changes that Mozilla has planned include updating in-content user interface styles, refining “all aspects” of the existing user interface, and finally a unified interface for consistent border-radii, dimensions, spacing, margins, icons, and color palette. In other words, it will feel like a brand new Firefox.
Here’s a more detailed comparison across the various desktop platforms Firefox is available on:


On its Add-ons blog, Mozilla last week discussed “Australis” – a major theme revamp with an objective to simplify the user interface. In this vein, there is a discussion of removing the Add-on Bar completely, killing user-created custom toolbars, and having the main toolbar feature a dedicated area for add-on buttons and widgets instead.
Mozilla warned Firefox add-on developers of the following:
Overall, you should plan for a minimalistic toolbar UI. While most add-ons do this already, it’s possible that the API to add toolbar buttons will be very different, and there will be changes to be made for all of them.
Firefox 21 may have arrived just last month, but the company has already scheduled all the versions it plans to release through March 2014 (Firefox 31). The news surrounding Firefox 25 thus shouldn’t be too surprising, though Mozilla did say why it is waiting so long before making these changes: Firefox 24 is an Extended Support Release (ESR), so major changes have been pushed after it to minimize any potential impact.
For those who don’t know, ESR is aimed at organizations such as schools, universities, and businesses that require extended support for mass deployments. The last Firefox ESR was version 17.0.
If these types of design changes float your boat, you can check out plans for Firefox 25 on various platforms here: Windows 7 – Aero, Windows XP (Luna Blue, Olive, Silver), OS X, and Linux.
Top Image Credit: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Source: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/05/mozilla-is-planning-a-major-design-overhaul-with-the-release-of-firefox-25-in-october-heres-a-quick-peek/

June 20, 2013

What to expect in Firefox 22 - Beta Ready To Test

Firefox 22 Beta Ready To Test
Written by Ian Elliot   
Thursday, 23 May 2013 10:23
Keeping track of where Firefox is going is difficult given you have at least two horizons to keep your eyes on. Here we have a brief look at what to expect in Firefox 22, currently in beta and close to being rolled out.

The big news in Firefox 22 is either WebRTC or asm.js depending on your particular interests.
WebRTC isn't new but now it is deemed stable enough to be on by default.
What can you do with WebRTC?
The simple answer is that you can get at the user's video camera and audio and set up browser-to-browser channels. This basically gives you more access to the native hardware from JavaScript. You can use it to build web pages that, say, process images captured by a connected camera, work with audio or set up browser-to-browser chats.
Why is it big news that WebRTC is on by default?
If you write a script that makes use of WebRTC to, say, access the users video camera then the browser will ask if this is okay. However, if WebRTC isn't enabled it just doesn't work. So if WebRTC isn't enabled by default you are going to have to first tell the user they need to enable it and then get permission to use the camera. The more likely it is that WebRTC is present and functioning in a browser, the more likely it is that WebRTC apps will be used, become popular, and replace proprietary solutions such as Skype.
firefoxicon
Now to the curiously named OdinMonkey and asm.js.
This is a way to make JavaScript run fast - hopefully fast enough for serious games and other apps that need speed. asm.js is a subset of JavaScript that can be run in an optimized JavaScript engine that recognizes asm.js - and this is what OdiinMonkey is. As asm.js is just plain old JavaScript, but written in a particular way, an asm.js program will run on any browser, but it will only go faster if ther is an optimizing JavaScript engine like OdinMonkey.
What can you do with asm.js?
In most cases you probably aren't going to write directly in asm.js - although you could. It is intended that compilers from languages like C/C++ will be used to create asm.js applications. At the moment this is the focus of the work, but in the future, who knows, there could be a JavaScript to asm.js compiler which would make standard JavaScript run faster.
Is asm.js fast enough?
Well the answer depends on what you are trying to do. No language implementation can beat hand coded assembler, so there is always a hit to take in using a high level language. Recent benchmarks suggest that it isn't quite as good as Mozilla thinks. Standard JavaScript runs at slightly worse than 25% the speed of native (C++) code and asm.js runs at around 60% of the speed of native code. Notice that this implies that asm.js runs twice as fast as JavaScript code.
It is good news that asm.js is in the beta and will soon be in the stable release but ... this is still just a Firefox feature. You can't expect asm.js to speed anything up on Chrome or IE.

firefoxicon

There are also some minor but important new features in Firefox 22.
You can now change the playback rate of HTML5 media. You can manage Firefox social services in the Add-ons manager and the Mac OS X download progress bar has been improved.  If you use WebGL, you will also be pleased to hear that it now renders faster because the Canvas update is asynchronous.
Also new is default support for CSS3 Flexbox, a new font inspector. The HTML5 data and time tags are now supported. There are also two new APIs - the Web Notification API which allows you to show notifications outside of the browser as if they were native OS notifications; and the clipboardData API.
The clipboardData API is big news for programmers wanting ways of getting data generated by a web app into a native app. For example, if you create an app that generates some graphics then you can now give the user the easy option of copy and pasting it into a desktop app. At the moment it isn't clear how compatible this is with the clipboard operations available in Chrome (22 on) and in IE.
Firefox 23 is already available in the Aurora channel and at the moment the new features look mostly to be more developer tools. Stay turned for more information.

Source: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/86-browsers/5901-firefox-22-beta-ready-to-test.html

Add-on Compatibility for Firefox 22

11
Firefox 22 will be released on June 25th. Here’s the list of changes that went into this version that can affect add-on compatibility. There is more information available in Firefox 22 for Developers, so you should read that too.
Update: please read this update for one more compatibility issue that was just discovered.

General

Places

There is much more Places code cleanup happening in 22, so that file system access happens asynchronously. Read the documentation of Places utilities for alternatives of these functions and objects.

XPCOM

New!

Please let me know in the comments if there’s anything missing or incorrect on these lists. If your add-on breaks on Firefox 22, I’d like to know.
The automatic compatibility validation and upgrade for add-ons on AMO will happen soon, so check your email if you have an add-on listed on our site.

Source: http://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2013/06/03/compatibility-for-firefox-22/

June 14, 2013

PCMag Review: Chrome 27 Browser vs the Competition

By Michael Muchmore It still holds that excellent performance and unique features like Chrome Instant, built-in Flash and PDF display, leading Web standards support, and a minimalist application window keep Chrome at the top of the browser competition–Firefox (Free, 4 stars), Internet Explorer 9 (Free, 4 stars), Opera (Free, 4 stars), and Maxthon. All those still strive to equal Chrome's Spartan user interface, speedy operation, and leading emerging standards support. Despite this and its unequalled ability to display download links on the world's most visited websites, Chrome's popularity has tailed off from its high point of over 19 percent usage share last May to just over 16 percent last month, according to the latest numbers from NetMarketShare. In the same time, longtime leader Internet Explorer regained nearly 2 percent market share, edging back up to 56 percent, while Firefox gained a half percent, to just over 20 percent. So the honeymoon with Chrome may be ending, perhaps due to privacy concerns or the other browsers catching up in speed and simplicity. But is it time to abandon this excellent web browser?

With updates coming at a clip of about every two months, Chrome itself it constantly striving to speed up even more and to add more whiz-bang internet technology support. We skipped reviewing version 26, so this time I'll take a look at what's new in both that and the latest version, Chrome 27.
The first add in Version 26 was spell-checking for web forms. You can either turn this on in Advanced settings or right click while entering form text to get suggestions from Google search. As with nearly every new feature in every Google product, the feature is a double-edged sword, in that it sends yet more of your browsing data to Google servers, something not all web users are comfortable with. One more minor feature came to Windows users in that release—the ability to create shortcuts to multiple users' Chrome accounts—also stored on Google servers.
In the latest version, Chrome 27, which of course includes the new version 26 features, too, we see a claim of faster page load times, the implementation of an API for saving files to Google Drive, and a DNS improvement for Mac and Linux. Both updates come with numerous security tightenings, so all users are advised to update to the latest version—a simple matter of restarting the browser.


Earlier Improvements
In Chrome 24, Chrome's developers tweaked JavaScript performance and bookmark searching, and added support for MathML and a few other minor HTML5 items. In Chrome 25, we got a new Speech API for voice recognition and speech-to-text, but no sites actually use this yet. We also get some protection from unwanted extension installation—something I'm running into lately with friends who were using Chrome.

Back in Chrome 23, Google finally joined all the other major Web browsers by including support for the Do Not Track privacy system first introduced by Mozilla and encouraged by the FTC. Unfortunately, most users will probably never see Chrome's Do Not Track option, since it's buried in advanced settings. The new version also adds GPU-accelerated video decoding and easier site privacy settings from the address bar. With its continual improvements and feature adds, Chrome remains the Web browser of choice, thanks to blazing speed, and ground-breaking features and leading technology support.

Emulating a trend started by IE9, Chrome's speed is now boosted by hardware acceleration, the use of your PC's graphics processor to speed up operations. To this Chrome's adds support for 3D WebGL graphics that even works on older computers, such as those running Windows XP—something IE9 can't boast.

But speed involves more than pure performance results on tests. Speed also comes with new standards support, in Chrome's case, for Google's SPDY initiative, which rewrites the basic transport protocol of the Web—HTTP. SPDY eliminates redundant interactions and compresses some sent data to speed up browsing. Only sites that support the standard, like some of Google's own, will benefit from the speedup, however.

Another speeder-upper comes in the form of Chrome's many "instant" features. First, there was Google Instant, by which Web search results start appearing as soon as you start typing in the Google search box. Then came Instant Pages, in which Chrome tries to guess which link you're likely to click on next, and preload that page in the background. Another "instant" feature, pre-loads the first-proposed autocomplete site in the background when you start typing in the browser's address bar, so that it springs into view instantly when you click on the auto suggestion's entry.


Speech
For a more Siri-like experience in the browser, the Speech API supported in Chrome starting with version 25 adds to the browsers previously existing support for HTML Speech Input standard introduced in version 11. Unlike HTML5 Speech Input, the new API enables scripted speech output and user input for forms, dictation, and device control. According to the W3C the standard is "not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track."

The community group behind the API is headed up by Google employees, and it's not supported by any other released browser at present, and the only implementation of it relies on Google's servers. The spec allows for other translation mechanisms, but this raises the question of each browswer implementing it differently. Since both Macs and PCs have had built-in speech recognition for years, it would make sense to just use the local capability.

Google has posted a test page that shows off the new API, with no more than a microphone icon and a text box. As with pages using WebRTC access to webcam and microphone, the browser first displays a bar at the top that lets you Allow or Deny access to the mic. Once you allow it, pressing the mic and talking lets you produce text in a surprising choice of languages—even Latin! The text appears after you release the mic button, and in my quick tests the transcribed speech was surprisingly accurate.

Yes, it's a cool feature, but I worry that its real purpose is to get your words stored on Google's servers rather than just to help you interact with your computer. Then again, you’ve got to pay for all this great technology somehow.


Swift Setup
Even the setup process shows Chrome's commitment to speed: Just click the Install button on the Chrome Web page, and you'll have the browser up and running in less than a minute, with no wizard to go through and no system restart. The browser's available for Mac OS X and Linux, as well as Windows. It also updates itself automatically in the background, but extensions are no longer silently updated. This protects users from unwanted extensions installing themselves, but it also means updates you want will be less hands-free.

When you first run Chrome, you see a generous dialog box giving you the option to use Bing, Google, or Yahoo as your search engine at installation, but the first view of the browser window asks you to sign into a Google account. This doesn’t change the behavior of the browser, but it does show Google’s increasingly solipsistic view of the Web, and raises more concerns about browser tracking. On the plus side, it does give you the benefit of being able to sync your different browser settings and bookmarks on different computers (more on this later).

Built-in Flash and PDF Support
Chrome is the only browser to come with Adobe Flash built in, rather than requiring a separate (and annoying) installation. And not having to perform the frequent required updates of the Flash plugin separately is another boon—it updates automatically with the browser. With version 10, many of the security issues with Flash (famously bemoaned by Apple's Steve Jobs) went away, thanks to running the plugin in an isolated sandbox so that it doesn't have access to critical system areas.

Chrome boasts a PDF reader as well, so you don't have to worry about installing any Adobe plugins for viewing specialized Web content. When you load a PDF, an intuitive toolbar shows when your mouse cursor is in the southeast vicinity of the browser window. From this, you can have the document fill the width of the window, show a full page, or zoom in and out. By default, you can select text for cutting and pasting, but I couldn't copy and paste images. You can print the PDF as you would any Web page.

Chrome's PDF viewer not only does what its name implies, but also serves as a print preview feature. Unlike IE's print preview, Chrome's shows up in a tab rather than its own window. But you have to go through it to print: In IE, I can just click the printer icon to send a page to the printer if I don't want to fuss with settings. I could choose between color and B&W, portrait and landscape, and choose the target printer, or print to PDF.

An Advanced button got me into the printer's own settings dialog, but this dismissed the print preview, making me have to choose Print from the menu again. But Chrome didn't let me choose a zoom percentage for the printout as Firefox and IE did, nor did it let me turn page headers on and off or choose margin sizes in a Page Setup dialog as those two did. So Chrome's print preview is a decent start, but it's still a bit behind the competition.


Interface
Minimalism has been a hallmark of Chrome since its first beta release. Tabs are above everything, and the only row below them holds the combined search/address bar, or "Omnibox." Here you can type any part of an address or page title, and the most likely site candidates will be presented in a dropdown. Optionally you can display bookmark links in a row below this. And the control buttons on the top-right of the browser window have been reduced to the absolute minimum—just one.
Google has removed the Page icon and placed some of its functions under the wrench button. Some of the Page options have been combined into buttons on one line in the menu, such as Cut, Copy, and Paste. I like what Google's done with the Zoom choice on the menu, adding plus and minus buttons that save you from having to fly out another submenu.

Another theme in the Chrome interface is that everything looks like a Web page, displaying in the main browser window, rather than in separate dialog boxes. This includes the interfaces for History, Extensions, Bookmarks, and even Options.

Mac users haven't been overlooked in the interface department, either. The browser supports OS X Lion's full screen view, along with overlay scrollbars that only appear when you're scrolling. Other more minor characteristics of the OS X "Aqua" style give Chrome on the Mac a more Mac-y appearance. Chrome also supports the new MacBooks' high-resolution Retina displays natively.

Chrome Instant
Chrome Instant is one of the niftiest things added to Chrome. Start typing a Web address in the Omnibox, and before you're even done, a page from your history or a search result page is displayed below in the main browser window. I just type "PC," and PCMag.com is already loaded. The idea was first implemented in Google search's Instant feature, but I think it's even more useful in the browser than in search, where I usually ignore it and finish typing my query anyway: Most sites we visit, we've visited before, so having them ready to go before you even finish typing is a big speeder-upper.
Chrome can also boast a less visible and less touted way of speeding up browser: it supports SPDY, an HTTP replacement that compresses header data and allows persistent connections between server and browsers. Some Google sites are already using SPDY when you browse with Chrome. As with Instant Pages, the technology is available to other Web publishers to implement, but again, Google itself is the most important player to support it. Mozilla recently added SPDY support in Firefox, so it's no longer a Google-only technology.
Tabtastic
Chrome also still sports excellent tab implementation. Tabs are prominent at the top of the browser window, and you can drag them out to the desktop to create independent windows (and drag them back in later) or split them side by side à la Windows 7 Aero Snap.

Google has put considerable thought into Chrome's new tab page, which shows links to your most-visited pages, Web apps, and recently closed tabs. In Chrome 15, the new-tab page got a redesign, emphasizing Google's Chrome Web Store of browser-based applications—really customized Web sites that have more access to your system, such as more local storage. The look offers two thin bars at the bottom that let you switch between Apps (showing large icons) and Most visited (showing eight thumbnails of the pages).

You can also switch between Apps and Most Visited by clicking large arrows at either side of the page. This startup appearance may confuse some, who may wonder where there favorite sites have gone—you can no longer move site thumbnails around the page or choose specific sites for the tiles, as you can in Opera or Internet Explorer. But you can pin a site up in the tab bar, and a corner X lets you remove a thumbnail from the most-visited tile view. To the right of these is a Recently Closed "dropdown" arrow, which actually pops up a clear list of closed tabs.

If you've synced Chrome on different computers (see below), the Apps section with be the same on all. Any apps you've added on a Chrome OS machine will also appear in the browser on any other computer you log into Chrome on, and vice versa. To remove an app, you drag it to the lower right of the window, where you can imagine a trash can icon.

Extensions in Chrome
Extensions are accessible from the Tools submenu of the Chrome customization menu, which appears as a wrench at the top right side of its program window. In typical Chrome fashion, rather than opening a window for that purpose (as in Firefox), what opens looks like a Web page listing installed extensions. To fill it up, you can head to the Extension gallery, which is linked from this Extensions page.

A checkbox for each extension allows it to run while you're in incognito (private-browsing) mode. Enough users must have complained that extensions disappear when you enter that mode; it makes sense that you might still want to run your Ad Blocker while in the private mode. In comparison, Firefox's extensions always work in its private browsing mode, as do Internet Explorer 8 and 9's Accelerators and WebSlices.

On the Chrome Extensions gallery page, you'll see a highlighted extension at the top. You can sort by "Most popular," "Most recent," "Top rated," or just the featured entries. When I checked, the most popular was a Gmail checker (which places an icon in your menu bar if you have unread email), followed by an Internet Explorer tab and a couple of ad blockers. An RSS reader extension fills a serious need in Chrome.

After I installed an extension, a tooltip popped up showing its icon either in the address bar or as an added menu button next to the default page and wrench menus. Some extensions, such as the RSS reader, and a PDF reader, don't install icons, while others add choices to the browser's options dialog. A "Chromed Bird" Twitter app required a separate authorization on the service, as I'm sure will be the case with most social network extensions.

All the extensions I tried worked well, and as advertised. The RSS extension appeared whenever I landed on a site with feeds, the IE Tab displayed pages that didn't look quite right in Chrome, and Chromed Bird let me see my Twitter feed and make my own tweets—in fact, it's one of the most convenient yet non-distracting twitter clients I've used. And if you're concerned with privacy as some are, there's even a Google Alarm extension to let you know when Google's collecting your information.


Syncing Bookmarks and More
Bookmark syncing has been available in Chrome for a couple years, duplicating a feature that was introduced by the Opera browser back in 2008. The folks at Google have incrementally added more syncables, and these include passwords, preferences, themes, "apps," auto-fill entries, extensions, and Omnibox history. You can also add new users to one machine's installation of Chrome, so multiple people can sync their customizations.

The changes bring Chrome to near-parity with Firefox's syncing prowess, but that browser lets you sync actual browsing history as well as the rest of it, and it all works in Firefox for Android, too. It's pretty neat browsing certain sites at work and then finding the same ones waiting on your home PC or on your phone. And tabs will be synced on all your Chrome-running devices, too.

To set up Chrome's syncing, go to the wrench menu and pick the "Sign in to Chrome…" menu choice. This opens a dialog where you enter your Google Account name and password, usually a Gmail login. After this, you'll see a "Confirm Sync Preferences" dialog, which hides syncing preferences under an Advanced link; the default is to sync everything. To set up access to the same bookmarks, extensions, search history, and the rest on another machine, you just repeat the process on that one.

One caveat: If you set this up with Omnibox history syncing, enabled by default, you're not explicitly warned that this means your entire search and address entry activity will be stored on Google's servers, but if you're using Chrome and Google search, more than this is already getting stored there. You can head to your Google Dashboard to see and control what's stored.

To allow another user to sync to their Chrome customizations and history, you head to the Personal Stuff page of Options, and choose "Add new user." This opens a new browser window with a clever icon, such as an alien head, or burglar mask. These will appear in the Taskbar Chrome icon when the new user is logged in. It's a useful feature for computers with more than one user, but it's not a privacy feature like Incognito windows, which don't save any browsing history.

 By Michael Muchmore

Performance
Chrome's spurt in browser popularity has been largely propelled by one characteristic: Speed. But actual page-loading time has long been a focus for the Microsoft team behind Internet Explorer, who have often pointed out to me that there's a lot more to browser speed than just JavaScript benchmarks. And indeed, more than one independent test lab has put the latest version of IE on top when it comes to page load time. In particular, New Relic and Strangeloop Networks. With Chrome 27, Google claims a 5 percent improvement in page load time.

To test this, I used an old tool called Numion Stopwatch. This simply measures the time from page request to page completion. I didn't report the first page load, allowing the browser to cache images and other content so that the internet connection would be less of a factor. I tested using six very different sites, starting of course with PCMag.com. I couldn't use any Google or Yahoo sites, since these don't let you run them in a frame, which the test requires. Here were my load times for the sites (with best scores highlighted):


Page Load Times (in seconds, lower is better)
Browser PCMag.com  Geek.com  CMA  eBay  nook.com  asus.com  Average
Google Chrome 27  3.42 2.32 0.2 1.28 1.67 1.74 1.77
Google Chrome 26 3.50 2.44 0.19 1.37 2.39 0.83 1.79
Firefox 21 4.31 2.38 0.35 1.66 2.17 1.21 2.01
Internet Explorer 10 3.80 2.3 0.29 1.3 1.97 0.67 1.72
Opera 12.15 3.66 2.58 0.17 1.45 2.68 3.14 2.28


So it looks like all that talk about page load time in Internet Explorer was for real, though these numbers are awfully close. The only real takeaway is that Firefox and Opera seem somewhat slower—for these sites—than Chrome and IE. Keep in mind that a site may optimize better for one browser than another, so these numbers are not definitive—for that you'd have to test most of the most-visited websites. With Opera moving to Chrome for its browser rendering systems in future versions, performance will change for the Nordic browser.


JavaScript
At the time of its introduction, Chrome did leave other browsers in the dust in JavaScript speed. This affects lots of application-like sites' performance, but as the above shows, isn’t the only measure of browser speed. At this point, the other browsers have mostly made up lost ground, and as you can see from the test results below, Chrome still wins some of the benchmarks, but it's a closer horserace. I ran the browsers through three JavaScript tests—SunSpider, Google Octane, and Mozilla Kraken. I ran the tests on a Core i5 2.5GHz Windows 7 (64-bit) laptop with 8GB of DDR2 memory. I shut down any unessential processes for seven averaged test runs, deleting the highest and lowest scores.


SunSpider 0.9.1
Browser Score in milleseconds
(lower is better)
Internet Explorer 10 232
Firefox 21 279
Google Chrome 27 429
Google Chrome 26 437
Opera 12.15 454


Chrome has fallen significantly behind IE and Firefox on SunSpider, which was recently updated to version 1.0. On Google's own JavaScript benchmark, Octane, Chrome maintains the lead, though it inexplicably fell off a bit this time in my testing, and Firefox is very close behind:


Google Octane
Browser Score (higher is better)
Google Chrome 26 9679
Google Chrome 27 9326
Firefox 21 9005
Internet Explorer 10 3906
Opera 12.15 2598


And on Mozilla's Kraken JavaScript benchmark, where a lower timing in milliseconds is faster, Firefox has regained the lead from Chrome, by a significant margin. Version 27's performance again shows some improvement over version 26 on this test, which takes longer to run and which Mozilla claims to more accurately represent real-world browsing than the others. The far-behind Opera should definitely benefit on this one when it moves to Chrome's engine.


Mozilla Kraken 1.1
Browser Score in milleseconds
(lower is better)
Firefox 21 2170
Google Chrome 27 3686
Google Chrome 26 3991
Internet Explorer 10 7369
Opera 12.15 18710


Hardware Acceleration
Chrome's graphics hardware acceleration and WebGL support powers graphical animations in sites. Previously, one of my test machines showed no acceleration while another did. Unlike IE9's hardware acceleration, Chrome's works on all popular operating systems; IE9 is limited to Windows 7 or Vista. Version 23 started making use of graphics hardware to accelerate video decoding, which will save a lot of battery charge while you're watching movies.

Microsoft's IE9 Psychedelic Browsing benchmark spins a color wheel and plays spacy sounds, reporting RPM as a result. The test really separates the browsers with graphics hardware acceleration from those without. IE and Firefox do well here, basically tied for first. Note that with some systems, IE limits performance to this test to save power. Previous Chrome versions showed a severe drop-off for some graphics cards, but that's no longer the case in my tests. Firefox doesn't play the required sound, while Chrome does. Here were my results using a Windows 7 PC with a 3.16 Core2 Duo processor and an Nvidia GeForce GT 240 with 4GB RAM:


IETestDrive Psychedelic Browsing
Browser RPMs (higher is better)
Internet Explorer 10 7452 (correct sound)
Firefox 21 7446 (no sound)
Google Chrome 27 5431 (correct sound)
Google Chrome 26 5430 (correct sound)
Opera 12 (with HW acceleration enabled) 3066  (no sound)


I also ran a newer IETestdrive hardware acceleration test—PenguinMark—on a 1.6GHz Intel Core i5-based tablet with 4GB memory running 64-bit Windows 8 Pro. The PenguinMark tests acceleration of Canvas, CSS3 animations and transitions, audio, WOFF, power and performance APIs. The benchmark shows what it's doing—creating snowflakes in increasing volume and moving characters around.


IETestDrive PenguinMark
Browser PenguinMarks (higher is better)
Internet Explorer 10 110
Chrome 27 74
Firefox 21 50
Chrome 26 45
Opera 12.15 6


Startup Time
How long do you have to wait before a browser is usable? That's a key performance question, and as with other measures, browsers have tightened up their differences on this measure. On my 2.5GHz dual-core Core i5 Windows 7 laptop with 8GB RAM, after a reboot Chrome 27's cold start time was 3.4 seconds, just a tad faster than IE10 and Firefox. Opera brought up the rear, with a seemingly endless 10.1-second cold startup time. On restarts of each browser without a reboot (warm restart) Chrome seems to have slowed a smidge from the earlier version. But none of these applications is likely to annoy you with its warm restart time, as you can see in the second column of this table:


Startup Times
Browser Cold Startup Time
(seconds)
Warm Startup Time  (seconds)
Chrome 26 3.3 1.1
Chrome 27 3.4 1.2
Internet Explorer 10   4.0 0.8
Firefox 21 6.0 1.2
Opera 12 10.1 2.9


Compatibility
Chrome has one of the best records in the business on supporting new Web technologies—though by no means does it have a monopoly on this front. Firefox, Opera, and Maxthon can all claim support for some HTML5 features not yet implemented in Chrome, such as Microdata support for indicating category info on a page. In version 22, Chrome did add support for the Pointer Lock API for improved game mousing. Opera is still alone in supporting CSS Generated Content for Paged Media, which enables websites to look and work like newspapers and books, including support for page-turning gestures. Keep in mind that some of these "standards" are in flux, but that hasn't stopped Google from including a technology in Chrome before.
In Chrome 21, Google added support for HTML5's getUserMedia functions, which allow a webpage to access the user's webcam and microphone. It's part of an emerging real-time streaming media standard, WebRTC, which uses simple JavaScript APIs to work its magic. The standard is currently in the Editor's Draft stage at the W3C Web standards body. Microsoft is hesitant to implement this feature in its browser till it's an actual recommended standard and supports more codecs than Google's open-sourced VP8. So while it's a cool technology demo, which you can see in action in demos like Webcam Toy, Magic Xylophone, and Opera's Exploding Camera, whether its implementation at this early stage is a plus is a moot point.
"Support for HTML5" is far from being a binary yes or no state of affairs. Trying different HTML sites put out by the different browser builders makes this clear pretty quickly. It's not news that Chrome still passes the Web Standards Project's Acid3 test, with 100 out of a possible 100. More granular, however, is the HTML5Test.com, which shows how many HTML5 elements and features a browser supports out of a possible total of 500. The test also notes "bonus" points for features that aren't required parts of HTML5, but are good to have, such as extra video codecs. Here's how the browsers line up on this measure:


HTML5Test.com
Browser Score (higher is better) Bonus Points
Maxthon 4 476 15
Chrome 27 463 13
Chrome 26 463 13
Opera 12.15 404 9
Firefox 21 399 14
Internet Explorer 10 320 6
Internet Explorer 9   138 5


I've included the lesser-known Maxthon in these results because of its stellar showing on this test. Version 27 maintains but doesn't increase Chrome's score the more popular browsers. Opera 12 is another standout on this test, with its support for webcam access, microdata, and CSS Native Pages. Firefox and IE10 aren't too far behind, though IE9 is way behind.

HTML5Test.com isn't the last word, though: the body actually responsible for Web standards, the W3C, is developing an HTML5 Test Suite. When finished, that set of tests will be definitive, and it will be interesting to see how the browsers pan out then. I've been writing that last sentence for a long time, but a real, thorough test battery is more imminent than ever, thanks to recent Facebook funding.
In my anecdotal testing of the browser, I didn't come across any nonfunctional pages, even for pesky financial and corporate Web app sites like Citibank, Fidelity, and Omniture. Facebook and Yahoo! Mail, which have presented difficulties in the past, worked flawlessly. I only occasionally ran into a minor rendering problem, such as overlapping text or fonts being slightly off, and forum comments show that users do occasionally have page display issues with Chrome.

Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373853,00.asp