Fire Fox vs Google chrome?

[Tina]

I am trying out Google chrome on my windows comp, and I actually quite like it. Which do you prefer and why?

[Rik]

Firefox because I don't trust Google, Tina.

[Tina]

ohhh why not?

[Rik]

They like to collect too much data about people, Tina.

[Tina]

Ok - not good,  so gone back to FF

[pctech]

FF because I know from work Chrome (and Safari) don't support some client-side scripting and I don't trust Google.

Chrome and Safari both use the Webkit rendering engine.

[Lance]

Rik, you say Google collect too much info (and I share that view) but what do you think the impact on yourself could be as a result of information collected from the use of Chrome?

[Rik]

I don't know, Lance, as Google don't tell us what they collect, or what they do with it. Just knowing their passion for collecting data, sometimes illegally, means that I'm not willing to take the risk.

[armadillo]

Firefox because

(1) It has a great collections of addons available

(2) It is fully colour managed. The only other colour managed browser is Safari. This matters only if you have a fully calibrated and profiled monitor and spend a lot of time on photography websites. If you don't know what colour managed means, it is unlikely to matter to you

[pctech]

Is colour masnagement the same as making sure you pick up two tins of Dulux white instead of one white and one red? 

[Steve]

A colour managed browser will read a tagged photo's embedded ICC profile and display the colours correctly using the computer's monitor profile, a non colour managed browser will ignore the ICC profile on the tagged images and use a default profile.

[Rik]

Usually sRGB, which leans heavily into the greens and is a far from ideal profile, whatever HP may think.

[Steve]

More here http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

[Rik]

Nice to see they agree with me on sRGB.

[JohnH]

I am trying out Google chrome on my windows comp, and I actually quite like it. Which do you prefer and why?

Firefox because of the addons, especially FireFTP.

[armadillo]

The article is quite good. Though nowhere near as good as Jeffrey Friedl's test and article
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2

The other article, and many people, follow the misapprehension that Windows uses a "default" profile of sRGB for untagged images. It does not - at least not up to and including Windows XP - though I have not investigated Windows 7 or Vista.

What XP and earlier actually do with images with no embedded profile is apply no profile at all. XP defaults to no profile, not to a default profile and not to sRGB.

Hence, images with no profile are displayed as if they were in your monitor profile - because the colour numbers in the image are passed straight to the graphics card without any conversion at all and the monitor displays them as however the monitor happens to respond.

Firefox, as the article says, actually does assume sRGB for images with no profile, and converts them to the monitor's profile.

Some partially colour managed software assumes that your monitor is in sRGB but Windows (XP) itself does not and it does not assume any profile for unprofiled images.

If you think about it, it could not really be any other way. Actually assuming sRGB would imply some conversion to it. Whereas, in fact, the default is to perform no conversion at all.

The Friedl article is also one of the few to make the distinction between tagged images and images with an embedded profile. Firefox correctly displays images with an embedded profile. Neither Firefox nor any other browser correctly displays tagged images. The Firefox help files are also wrong in referring to tagged images when they mean images with an embedded profile.

The distinction is subtle. Tagged images contain just a few bytes to indicate the intended profile. An image with an embedded profile actually includes the complete profile. Firefox cannot read the tags. Very few softwares do in fact read profile tags. Photoshop does but I know of no other software that does. Most colour managed software can only handle embedded profiles and not tagged images.

Even Photoshop calls images without a profile "untagged RGB" though of course, Adobe do know the difference!
I also sometimes use "untagged" loosely with the wrong meaning. I did in the very first sentence of this post

[Steve]

Thanks for the link 

[Technical Ben]

Just took the plunge into FireFox 6 (It's 4.6 right? This naming system is confusing).
I hate it. The toolbars are horrid. So I've put everything on 1 bar. More display space for webpages! Roar!
The text looks atrocious with Direct Draw (hardware acceleration). I've no idea why text rendering even need hardware acceleration. Emulating it on a Amstrad would be no strain on the CPU or software render and code. I have no problem with putting the code through the hardware more efficiently, but get it right first.
Thankfully I can disable it and get nice, smooth, crisp and visible text again.

So basically, FireFox 6, but made to look and work like FireFox 3.   

[Simon]

That's how I'd like Windows 7 - to look and work like XP. 

[zappaDPJ]

I use Firefox for work, Chrome for general browsing and Internet Explorer to see what isn't rendering correctly

[Technical Ben]

That's how I'd like Windows 7 - to look and work like XP. 

Same. Most of the time. I like the shiny edges, but turn most things off.

[Rik]

Another dinosaur here - except in my case, most of my machines are running XP and looking like Win 98.

[Technical Ben]

Sorry Rik. I have to say the updates in XP's visuals are more to my liking than 98. Granted, at times I ran XP with the themes turned off, but mainly prefer soft edges, as long as they are not Apple strength. 

[Rik]

I just like to keep extraneous colour off the screen, Ben, it avoids distorting my colour perception if I'm working in Photoshop.

[Technical Ben]

Oh. That's where "open with themes disabled" tick boxes comes in real handy. I turn off transparent windows, so I cannot see my pretty, but distracting wallpaper.