×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Chrome 33 Nixes Option To Fall Back To Old 'New Tab' Page

timothy posted about a year ago | from the put-it-on-my-ta-hey-waittaminute dept.

Chrome 125

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, Chrome 33 was shipped out the everyone on the stable channel. Among other things, it removes the developer flag to disable the "Instant Extended API", which powers an updated New Tab page. The new New Tab page receieved a large amount of backlash from users, particularly due to strange behavior when Google wasn't set as the default search engine. It also moves the apps section to a separate page and puts the button to reopen recently closed tabs in the Chrome menu. With the option to disable this change removed, there has been tremendous backlash on Google Chrome's official forum. The official suggestion from Google as well as OMG! Chrome is to try some New Tab page changing extensions, such as Replace New Tab, Modern New Tab Page, or iChrome."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fix youtube (0, Troll)

scan2006 (313789) | about a year ago | (#46313091)

They need to fix the fullscreen youtube problem

Re:Fix youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313131)

Which problem is that? I watch YouTube full screen all the time (CentOSv6) ...

Re: Fix youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313169)

Probably the one where HTML5 video full screens under the stupid menu bar thing and crops the top of the video.

Use Firefox (3, Insightful)

stooo (2202012) | about a year ago | (#46314881)

JUF : Just use Firefox

Chrome (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | about a year ago | (#46313117)

I think that Chrome seems fine ...

Re:Chrome (5, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#46313247)

When I open a new tab in chrome, and try to do a search in the search box, it shifts focus instantly to the url field.

Can anyone tell me how to prevent this? It makes searching google using a url as the keyword a huge, ginormous pain in the ass, and it interferes with what I'm doing on pretty much a daily basis.

Re:Chrome (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#46313253)

Whoever thought it was a good design choice, shifting the focus halfway across the screen after the user explicitly put focus on the search box... I sure hope they're no longer working in IT. That was just gross incompetence.

Re:Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313579)

It's the same thing with the Google now app search bar. It looks like an input bar that you type into but its an app launcher. Never understood that..

Re:Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313975)

Whoever thought it was a good design choice, shifting the focus

You could've saved a few dozen bytes by stopping there. Think of the bytes!

Re:Chrome (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year ago | (#46314237)

it shits me to tears, if i put a url in the search box i want to search for the URL not go to the URL. at least it's open source, i smell a real fork coming in the next 6 months.

Re: Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46314441)

Ctrl+e

Re:Chrome (1)

onosson (1107107) | about a year ago | (#46314759)

Wow, I never noticed that before. What a strange idea.

Re:Incompetence? (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#46314887)

It probably didn't take as many skilled developers as Windows 8, but a lot of fine effort probably went into this, done by competent professionals.
I'm sure with a few months of concerted effort, we can all develop the proficiency required to use the solution as intended; Don't be a Luddite.

Re:Chrome (2)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year ago | (#46313263)

Why are you searching for URLs? If you add another word it'll be fine though - you can simply add a " ." if you like.

Re:Chrome (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#46313305)

Why are you searching for URLs? If you add another word it'll be fine though - you can simply add a " ." if you like.

Better than nothing, I guess. Thanks.

Re:Chrome (5, Informative)

glavenoid (636808) | about a year ago | (#46313441)

Ctrl+k puts focus in the omni/address bar with a "?" which tells chrome you want to search rather than go to a url. Alternatively, you can add the ? as the first character in the address/omibar and this will also initiate a search rather than going to the site.

Re:Chrome (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#46313943)

That's how I do searches, using the ? in the address bar. It's quite easy and intuitive.

Re:Chrome (1)

mlk (18543) | about a year ago | (#46315041)

How is that intuitive?

Re:Chrome (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#46315571)

Beer? (tell me about beer).
Beer! (get me to beer).

Seems very intuitive to me!

Re:Chrome (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year ago | (#46314529)

Oh thanks, that is better than the method I described.

Re:Chrome (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year ago | (#46314249)

that's pretty cool, how can i force it to go to sites it doesn't think are urls (ie my local network is all computername.l) without having to type in http:/// [http] and hope it works

Re:Chrome (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#46314539)

Have you tried putting a slash on the end? We use a lot of single-word URLs internally and putting a slash on the end always convinces Chrome that I mean it as a URL not a search keyword.

Re:Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313821)

Put quotes around the URL - so instead of searching for ibm.com search for "ibm.com". It doesn't stop shifting the focus to the URL bar, but it does produce a search for the URL rather than going to the URL directly.

JUF (1)

stooo (2202012) | about a year ago | (#46314883)

JUF : Just use Firefox.

Should be a public API for this (4, Informative)

Darkon (206829) | about a year ago | (#46313143)

Doesn't help that the new tab page lives inside a protected "chrome://" namespace which extensions are almost entirely prevented from touching, and uses private APIs for things like showing the most used pages, meaning that anyone wanting to put it back how it was by writing an extension has to reimplement everything from scratch.

I loved the old Google. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year ago | (#46314135)

Sadly, Google is on the way down. It was wonderful while the company believed in "Do no foolishness."

Re:Should be a public API for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315247)

This.
I've gotten Speed Dial and fixed it to 2x4 and selected my 8 pages manually, but it's not quite the same. Maybe someone with more more JS knowledge can fix that to behave more like chrome used to?

Also "Modern Tab" who the fuck would ever use that piece of shit?

Two search boxes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313147)

It's just stupid. Why?

I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

log0n (18224) | about a year ago | (#46313171)

what exactly is this topic saying?

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (3, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#46313201)

It is saying the Google is slipping down the slippery slope of evil, ignoring massive negative feedback as usual, and demonstrating clearly why dominance of their non-open open source browser is a bad thing for everybody except Google.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313229)

Uh huh, and what is that in non-hyperbole? You know, facts and such.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (3, Insightful)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year ago | (#46313267)

I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#46313395)

I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."

What about offering tools to exploit you by making you pick an option without considering if it's in your best interest?

Does that qualify?

Re: I guess I'm geezering.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313431)

Wtf? Specifics please.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313457)

Tell that to all the people at soylentnews.org ;-)

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (2)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#46313601)

I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."

Not even all that controversial, since the UI change happened about a year ago and Chrome market share has continued climbing.

The only way to avoid annoying some percentage of your user base with UI changes is to never change the UI. Even clear improvements will generate screams of outrage from a few percent of the users, just because they don't like change.

In any case, if people don't like Chrome's UI, there are plenty of other options. If you really dislike this change, just use a different browser that you like better. If enough people do that, Google will get the message.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46314545)

There are about as many viable alternatives to Chrome as there are to (insert-your-crummy-local-ISP-name-here). Just like with the Gmail mobile app and the removal of the conversation view toggle, Google knows there are very few viable alternatives (and practically none for Gmail/Google Apps email that work as expected) and enough people will eventually just shut up and put up with their bullshit.

I don't understand why anybody is surprised by this.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#46314643)

I switched from gmail to outlook.com late last year. It totally doesn't suck. As far as I can tell it has the same features, and the look of the UI is fine (not beautiful, but neither is gmail).

Don't feel like you're stuck with gmail.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46314981)

Hear, hear. Another happy outlook.com user here. If you want a geeky option that just works, it's really good for that.

Re: I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

YordanGeorgiev (1770998) | about a year ago | (#46315415)

It totally doesn't suck!? ;Ã)

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#46316077)

Er, Firefox? Safari? Opera? For that matter, Chromium?

And I hear that IE isn't so awful these days.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a year ago | (#46313485)

Dominance? Non-open source? What are you wittering on about?

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (2)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year ago | (#46314265)

it's GPL, how's that not open source? the flash code? that's not open source anywhere.

Re:I guess I'm geezering.. (1)

syockit (1480393) | about a year ago | (#46314967)

That's “non-open open source”, with two opens.

In other words, it's the Cathedral model [catb.org] .

what a fuss about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313207)

Don't like it? Switch to Firefox. That's why we have choice - vote with your feet, stop bitching and moaning like Google owes you something.

Re:what a fuss about nothing (1)

RDW (41497) | about a year ago | (#46313317)

Firefox wil be copying this behaviour within a week. That's why we have SeaMonkey.

Re: what a fuss about nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313553)

and if no choice is good, someone will invent a new browser that will solve all our gripes and become wildly successful. Which of course is how Chrome came about in the first place. So Crime starting to suck is not a bad thing, but the herald of the next good thing.

Re:what a fuss about nothing (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#46313541)

I'm still using Chrome because I really like the ability to use a website's search feature from the Omnibar (for instance, typing "ama" -> Tab -> will perform a search on Amazon). I wish other browsers would do this--preferably Opera, Safari, or Firefox (the other browsers that have official 1Password extensions).

Re:what a fuss about nothing (3, Informative)

bolek_b (246528) | about a year ago | (#46313755)

Firefox has this ability as well, it is not so obvious, though.
  • Go to a page with some search field, for example amazon.com title page.
  • In Firefox Search Bar, expand its pop-up menu; one of the items should be "Add Amazon Search Suggestions". Click it
  • Once again go to Search Bar pop-up menu, this time for "Manage Search Engines..."
  • Select the appropriate row and click "Edit Keyword..."
  • Type some reasonably short abbreviation, such as "ama"

You are done, now you can type "ama cthulhu" and there you go. I have there shortcuts for Google (keyword "g"), Wikipedia ("w"), YouTube ("y"), IMDB, CPAN and a couple of other sites and it is really efficient and comfortable.

Re:what a fuss about nothing (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#46314735)

I should have made it clearer. I'm aware that similar functionality exists; I just prefer Chrome's implementation. It's automatic and, IMO, more visually pleasing. But those minor pluses probably aren't worth it. Thanks.

Re:what a fuss about nothing (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#46313977)

You mean search keywords?, that was in Mozilla Suite already and presumably Firefox 0.x. Right-click an arbitrary form and select "add a keyword for this search".

Maybe time to block updates (1)

manofyunk (122268) | about a year ago | (#46313209)

https://support.google.com/installer/answer/146164?hl=en

Foolish idea (2, Insightful)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about a year ago | (#46313319)

And leave yourself with an increasingly insecure browser thanks to discovered bugs the updates you've blocked fix? No thanks. I'd swap browsers before leaving myself with an out-of-date browser.

Re:Foolish idea (1)

tgv (254536) | about a year ago | (#46314711)

Stop using Windows then...

Re:Foolish idea (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#46314997)

Wouldn't the situation be same under other operating systems?

Re:Foolish idea (1)

tgv (254536) | about a year ago | (#46315023)

If you run Chrome on Linux or OSX under a non-admin account, you run less risks. Or perhaps it's time to start using Firefox or Chromium. Or even fork Chromium.

But for utlimate safety: stay off the net...

Re:Foolish idea (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#46315161)

I recommend keeping the browser updated on all operating systems.

Burning Chrome (5, Interesting)

kevlar_rat (995996) | about a year ago | (#46313249)

So basically a successful company forced a new UI on their audience, ignoring a mountain of negative feedback, without really understanding the community?

Re:Burning Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313313)

It's not like this is new even to Google. See the youtube redesign, headed by a guy who wants youtube to be more like TV.

Re:Burning Chrome (1)

bolek_b (246528) | about a year ago | (#46313773)

Is it the same guy as the one responsible for GMail? Or the one behind Flickr? Or is it a sign of coming "bad redesign epidemy"?

Re:Burning Chrome (4, Funny)

Max Threshold (540114) | about a year ago | (#46313335)

It's the Microsofting of Google.

Re:Burning Chrome (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#46313347)

Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.

Re:Burning Chrome (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#46314879)

Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.

It's part of that whole "you're not the customer, you're the product" thing.
I've never heard a meat-packing plant listen to the feedback from cows, either.

Re:Burning Chrome (1)

drolli (522659) | about a year ago | (#46315289)

But they offer free grass, so lets just stay here for a while.

Re:Burning Chrome (1)

Maxwell (13985) | about a year ago | (#46313415)

The UI has been there for a long time. Some diehards found a (somewhat secret, somewhat obscure) developer switch that allowed the 'old way' to hang around a little longer.

I had to go back and forth from the article to a new tab page to try and figure out what they were talking about as I saw no change at all in 33.

Re:Burning Chrome (1)

rundgong (1575963) | about a year ago | (#46313479)

Damn, if you had not started the sentence with "successful company", that would have have been a great opportunity for a joke about Beta...

Re:Burning Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313645)

Are you the community? Or the guy signing in as 'kevlar_rat'? As someone (a rare touch of sanity here) brought up: the change is a year old, Chrome's use share continued to climb. What gives? A bunch of dudes ranting on a web forum certainly is 'a community', but perhaps not 'the community'.

For the record: I don't like that change much. These tinsy thumbnails are just completely illegible.

Re:Burning Chrome (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year ago | (#46314281)

i'm pretty sure they understand their users, they just don't give a shit about pissing off power users.

Re:Burning Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46314363)

This story sounds familiar. [mozilla.org]

Re:Burning Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315051)

Is it forced? The start tab is customizable (in that you can just replace it). If the old one is so awesome someone will make a replacement that mirrors the old behavour and everyone is good.

Mountain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315847)

mountain of negative feedback

You know how the passenger side rear-view mirror on most cars says, "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"? Well, on the Internet, things seem larger than they appear. Hence, what you call a "mountain of negative feedback" is in fact a tiny minority of the whole userbase. I call this "Ron Paul Syndrome." Back when he was running for president, it seemed like Ron Paul and his supporters were everywhere on the Internet. Yet, in the real world, at the ballot box, he was insignificant.

I prefer the "Empty New Tab Page" extension (3)

kill-1 (36256) | about a year ago | (#46313379)

If an empty new tab page would be configurable and Chrome wouldn't exit if a single tab is open and I press Ctrl-W, I'd be perfectly happy with Chrome's tabs. For the latter, I use the "Live On" extension, which is a bit quirky, unfortunately. With Firefox I can fix both these issues, at least in about:config.

Running Chromium in a loop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313991)

while true ; do /usr/bin/chromium ; done

Fixed for me : P

Re:Running Chromium in a loop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315267)

Or just run it on OSX where closing the last window doesn't kill the application by default.

Come on kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313543)

STOP whining and use fucking Firefox instead!

Re:Come on kids... (1, Troll)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#46313765)

Are you kidding me? Firefox is almost as bad about this "completely fucking change the UI every six months" thing as Chrome is.

The real answer is Seamonkey, [seamonkey-project.org] which is basically the old Mozilla project under a different name. At this point it's basically FF 3.6 brought up to date with patches and actual improvements, as opposed to changes for the sake of change.

Re:Come on kids... (1)

janeil (548335) | about a year ago | (#46316805)

Another vote for seamonkey here as well! I love how the post above was modded as 'troll' for suggesting seamonkey. I only use FF for the webdev tools.

And Still No Scroll Arrows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313557)

FIX

CHROME is turning APE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313647)

What the APE is the problem with the Chrome developers. This evil crap they're doing, forcing people to use their application the way they want you to is totally against the Open Source Community. EVIL CHROME!

Re:CHROME is turning APE! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#46313707)

Its a google project and it exists to benefit them.

(posting from firefox).

A tempest in a teapot .. (2)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about a year ago | (#46313779)

New Tab Redirect! [google.com] Remove Google Redirects [google.com]

Re:A tempest in a teapot .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315287)

NTR doesn't work. They took out the old new tab internal page. So it's worthless

... and today I stopped using the New Tab screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313795)

... and replaced it with "Speed Dial 2" plugin. There are other New Tab screen replacement plugins available - choose your own.

Let's show Google that we won't automatically eat everything they feed us. Screws up some more and bye-bye Chrome browser.

Re:... and today I stopped using the New Tab scree (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#46313893)

Let's show Google that we won't automatically eat everything they feed us. Screws up some more and bye-bye Chrome browser.

Wow you are really serious about not trusting google.

Re:... and today I stopped using the New Tab scree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315057)

How have they screwed you? If they did not have a bunch of plugin replacements I'd understand.

Rollin your own (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about a year ago | (#46313817)

With all of the HTTP components in language API's that can be integrated into applications I'm wondering why more people don't just give up on web browsers made by others. Though I wonder how many companies would block you from accessing their site if the browser doesn't have the correct branding.

Re:Rollin your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46313915)

They can try, but they'd never, ever succeed. You can easily spoof browsers. Trivial even.

You could make a proxy script to make any and every request come from any browser you wanted to, so it would save you even having to edit anything.
You could make FTP requests from generic FTP programs look like it was coming from Opera if you really wanted to. Or IE 999. Or NSACRAWL149 or something just to spook website owners, then probably end up on a watchlist for impersonating a 3 letter agency.

Re:Rollin your own (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#46315005)

I thought FTP cannot include a user agent string anywhere.

Re:Rollin your own (1)

mlk (18543) | about a year ago | (#46315091)

> HTTP components in language API's

I'm going to assume you mean complete stack (HTTP, HTML renderer, JS Engine etc). While the HTTP layer is fairly simple (and thus implement well in a ton of APIs for each of the major platforms), the rest is BIG and to do it well is hard so it is not done well all that often. So what you end up with is either a re-skinned IE, Firefox or Chrome.

Now these exists, for a bunch of different reasons for example before IE had tabs a tabbed IE existed and people who want to stay in the late 1990s have SeaMonkey. However most end up with an interface that is a lot like Chrome/Firefox/IE (as it is a good interface) but without the plugin support.

> Though I wonder how many companies would block you from accessing their site if the browser doesn't have the correct branding

I use to happen a lot and that is why we now have stupid user agent strings.

Mine is currently:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/33.0.1750.117 Safari/537.36

Mozilla/5.0 - Pretend to be Firefox
AppleWebKit/537.36 - And Safari
KHTML - Base of Safari/Chrome
Gecko - Back to Firefox
Chrome - I could be Chrome
Safari - Of Safari

The only one missing is IE. And I've seen many a user agent string that includes that as well (while not actually being IE).

endless wankerisms (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46314507)

People get tired of these endlessly changing interfaces. These days these things are 'consumer products' used by people who just want to get their task done and not have to fuck around with some interface some dweeb or marketing wanker has decided will be more 'keen' or' spiffy' if changed significantly.
They just want it to do what they did yesterday and not have to search around for a control they learned to use routinely.

You Can Remove The Thumbnails Manually By... (1)

saudadelinux (574392) | about a year ago | (#46314697)

Thumbnails of the websites you visit frequently appear under the search box. Simply click a thumbnail to visit the site. To remove a most visited site, hover your mouse over the thumbnail, and click the X icon in the upper right corner of the thumbnail. https://support.google.com/chr... [google.com] I removed mine, opened a new tab and it was blank. I haven't restarted Chrome, so I don't know how long this effect lasts. HTH.

Was it picked up in Beta? (1)

grahammm (9083) | about a year ago | (#46314957)

Chrome 33 was in Beta for a while before being released as stable. So these issues should have been picked up/highlighted then. How much negative feedback on the new 'new tab' page was there during the beta cycle? I am using Chromium beta cycle and soon got used to the new 'new tags' page.

I hope, Distros will start patching chromium (2)

allo (1728082) | about a year ago | (#46315015)

And remove some of the new unfeatures.

Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden (4, Informative)

kav2k (1545689) | about a year ago | (#46315163)

You think that's the real problem in Chrome 33?

Well, compare that to this fact: on Chrome 33 on Windows (and Windows only) all non-Chrome-Web-Store extensions are forcibly disabled and will not install anymore, with the exception of pushing them through domain group policy.

http://www.chromium.org/develo... [chromium.org]

So, say goodbye to anything not blessed by Google, like extensions that allow "the unauthorized download of streaming content or media".
Unless you want to use the Dev channel as an official workaround, or are content with loading extensions unpacked, with no auto-update.

It's not like I don't understand the problem, I've seen rampant Chrome crapware on clueless people's computers. But this is heavy-handed.

Re:Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315261)

Don't like it, then run it on Linux where you can sideload to your heart's content, or run active directory!

Font on tabs and antialiasing (3, Interesting)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#46315321)

Personally I'm more worried about them having broken the rendering of the fonts on tabs a few versions back...
It is antialiased despite my settings saying that it shouldn't.

My suggestion (1)

markdavis (642305) | about a year ago | (#46315693)

>"The official suggestion from Google as well as OMG! Chrome is to try some New Tab page changing extensions, such as Replace New Tab, Modern New Tab Page, or iChrome." "

My official suggestion would be to switch to using a browser that is designed, supported, and implemented by the COMMUNITY- Firefox. Google is going to do what Google wants to do to further their own goals, not necessarily ours. Over time, this becomes more and more apparent.

Example- although Mozilla might be adding some links in the newpage tab to help support their goals of financing Firefox, you can easily change those tabs, or remove the stupid thing all together by changing browser.newtab.url to "about:blank".

Re:My suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46316325)

Every time I try Firefox, the speed difference brings me back to Chrome/Chromium.

Humble New Tab Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46315761)

Want a clean interface other than those metro based extensions?
Humble New Tab Page is the choice:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mfgdmpfihlmdekaclngibpjhdebndhdj

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?