For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-ins?
What I'm worried about is when all these plugins are made and people start installing them maybe you'll start bloating up the browser.
Some addons are actually useful like FoxMarks or DownThemAll while other are simply just bloat.
What are your thoughts?
My baby boy! Coming December 21st!
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
It's all really on what the user wants. If you don't want extensions, then don't use em.
I don't think I ever used anything other than Adblock on FF, loaded pages slower in my opinion.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
Of course it's up to the users to decide what to use or not.
However I think one of the appealing factors in Chrome is how Zen it is. Nothing more than you need.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-ins?
I want other plugins than you but I still voted yes. Plugins usually don't hog anything.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
Not to harp on it, but that is up to the user. Obviously, plug-ins is a huge draw to any browser and limiting what can be plugged-in would only discourage people further.Originally Posted by papuccino1
That said, I will be keeping my plug-ins to a minimum, but I want Google to make this thing as accessable as possible because I want to see Goog knock MS down a few more pegs.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
Exactly. Is like saying "windows has enough crappy software, let's say developers to quit doing it". It's all in the taste of the consumer.
I use several plugins, FireFTP, PasswordMaker, Dictionaries, Foxmarks, Downthemall, IE TAB, BugMenot, ReloadEvery, and Package Tracker. I use them all every single day.
Sure there are crappy plugins, but you have the tops on the best voted/downloaded ones on FF's extension directory.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
You're actually talking about addons, not plug-ins. Plug-ins are things like flash support, or shockwave support or a PDF reader. Add-ons are things like FoxMarks and DownThemAll. Now that that is cleared up, I think they should add add-on support and let people make, and decide upon, the add-ons they themselves want. If you want to remain tru to the pure add-on free chrome you are more then welcome to, please don't try to stop other people from doing so if they want. For one thing, it's rude, for another, it can't work. Chrome is open-source. If google doesn't add add-on support, someone else will.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
My thoughts are that different people find different plugins useful and everyone should be able to use whatever plugins they want. Please don't try to discourage developers from adapting/writing plugins. How people use their browsers is their own business.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-ins?
I refuse to use any browser unless it has proper mouse gesture support (whether built-in or plugin), simply because its absence reduces productivity by an unreasonable amount. I would use IE for compatibility with corporate web apps and (IMHO) speed, but it doesn't support mouse gestures, and is therefore too painful to use. The same argument holds for Chrome, except that Chrome also lacks the IE compatibility.
With that said, if Chrome supported mouse gestures, I would switch to it in a heartbeat.
Re: For simplicity's sake, do you think the browser should get all these plug-in
I think that the most useful and performance enhancing (adblock, etc.) plug-ins should be incorporated directly into the program and streamlined.
Or there could be a system where if a plug-in is used by over X% of the user population, then it is incorporated.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
