OT: Google's multithreaded browser

[Alan Fregtman]

Hey guys,

Slightly OT, but I thought it'd be worthwhile to point out Google's
"Chrome" browser they just released a day or two ago:
http://google.com/chrome

It feels really fast, very stable and perhaps most interesting of
all... it's multithreaded!! (...sort of like ICE, tsk tsk..)

Cheers,

-- Alan
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majo...@Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi

[Frank Lenhard]

its showing google mail faster than my local mail app.. crazy....

ciao
franky

Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 3:29:48 PM, you wrote:

AF> Hey guys,

AF> Slightly OT, but I thought it'd be worthwhile to point out Google's
AF> "Chrome" browser they just released a day or two ago:
AF> http://google.com/chrome

AF> It feels really fast, very stable and perhaps most interesting of
AF> all... it's multithreaded!! (...sort of like ICE, tsk tsk..)

AF> Cheers,

AF> -- Alan
AF> ---
AF> Unsubscribe? Mail Majo...@Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
AF> unsubscribe xsi

[peter boeykens]

so you can have a more important performance impact on your renders in the
background?
no thanks ;-)

[Andy Jones]

Yeah, I used it all day yesterday.  There were a few minor glitches, but for the most part it was pretty stable.  No crashes -- just a few slightly odd behaviors when clicking links and/or submitting forms.  The speed improvements and other new features are easily worth a few glitches (especially since they'll probably get sorted out pretty quickly).  Anyway, I probably won't be switching back to Firefox.

[Halfdan Ingvarsson]

Can't get it to display anything but the "Aw, snap!" page. It was rather amusing at first, then just less than informative. After that I just gave up.

 

Also, if you want to set a proxy, it pops open the IE connection settings, which makes me rather suspicious. I don't trust IE for anything outside the local network. The damn thing is a petri dish.

 

 - ½

---

From: owne...@Softimage.COM [mailto:owne...@Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Andy Jones
Sent: 03-Sep-2008 11:20
To: X...@Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: OT: Google's multithreaded browser

[Joe Laffey]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Andy Jones wrote:

> Yeah, I used it all day yesterday. There were a few minor glitches, but for
> the most part it was pretty stable. No crashes -- just a few slightly odd
> behaviors when clicking links and/or submitting forms. The speed
> improvements and other new features are easily worth a few glitches
> (especially since they'll probably get sorted out pretty quickly). Anyway,
> I probably won't be switching back to Firefox.

Chrome has no AdBlock... so forget it in my book. I tried it and forgot
just how many ad there are on websites. I never see those, I don't waste
time or bandwidth on them. firefox with AdBlock is a must. Perhaps they
will make AdBlock for Chrome, but google wouldn't like that, seeing as how
it blocks their ads.

Also, Chromes EULA gives google a perpetual irrevocable license to use
anything you transmit (upload or download) in any way they see fit. I read
the EULA carefully when I downlaoded it. It seems others are taken aback
by it as well:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

The intent of that passage may be to apply to the other services,
however, legally it applies to Chrome as well, and anything you upload or
download in any way through the browser.

No thanks.

--
Joe Laffey | Visual Effects for Film and Video
LAFFEY Computer Imaging | -------------------------------------
St. Louis, MO | Show Reel http://LAFFEY.tv/?e11627
USA | -------------------------------------
. | -*- Digital Fusion Plugins -*-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lee_...@scee.net]

Anyone had any luck with this in V7? I'm only getting semi reasonable looking output when I actually turn the motion blur up to 1 in the scene options (which kinda defeats the point of rendering out a motion vector pass ;o))

Cheers

Lee
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postm...@scee.net
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for all known viruses.
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United Kingdom
Registered in England: 3277793
**********************************************************************
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

[Halfdan Ingvarsson]

Just add a "Raster Motion Vector" channel, output as at least a 16-bit image, and you're done. No need for the lm2dMV shader.

 

 - ½

---

From: owne...@Softimage.COM [mailto:owne...@Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Lee_...@scee.net
Sent: 03-Sep-2008 11:55
To: X...@Softimage.COM
Subject: lm2DMV passes in V7

[Lee_...@scee.net]

Sweet - job done!

Thanks!

"Halfdan Ingvarsson" <hing...@Softimage.COM> Sent by: owne...@Softimage.COM 03/09/2008 17:05 Please respond to X...@Softimage.COM

To <X...@Softimage.COM> cc Subject RE: lm2DMV passes in V7

[Ponthieux, Joey]

Internet Ex-spore?

Joey Ponthieux
NCI Information Systems Inc.
NASA Langley Research Center
____________________________________________________________
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and
do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.

Halfdan Ingvarsson wrote:
> The damn thing is a petri dish.
>
> - ½
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> *

[kim aldis]

It wouldn't have, Google rely on Adsense.

More on the conditions of use. If it's enforceable they'll own the entire
world by next Tuesday.
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Suc
ks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owne...@Softimage.COM [mailto:owne...@Softimage.COM] On

> Behalf Of Joe Laffey
> Sent: 03 September 2008 16:31
> To: X...@Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: OT: Google's multithreaded browser
>

[christian keller]

funny - the website has been removed,
but you can find it with google , in the cache ;-)

[Alan Fregtman]

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common-google-chrome-objections/

He debunks most things, including the misconception about the EULA (at
the bottom.) I'm sure they'll reword it and post something on the
oficial Google blog.

[Scott Parrish]

Does anyone think they might have named it 'Chrome' just to rub salt in Microsoft's wounds?

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-buffs-its-Chrome/2100-1033_3-209559.html

I was looking for some references to Microsoft's ill-fated 3d web browsing extensions 'chrome' from the mid-late 90s, but it seems like MS has mostly cleansed the internet of any mention of it other than some random news articles from around that time. They poured loads of cache into developing 3d web browsing and then it went kaput more or less.

Gotta wonder if their copyright claim to the name 'Chrome' as a web related piece of software is still valid..

scott

--
scott parrish
scot...@gmail.com

[Alan Fregtman]

Hi Scott,

"chrome" is actually a common term for any browser's UI outside of the
box where websites render. The buttons, their layout, the borders...
that's the chrome.

-- Alan

[Halfdan Ingvarsson]

Turns out that Symantec Anti-Virus toasts it. It can be run without the sandbox feature (chrome.exe --no-sandbox) but that sort of removes one of the main benefits :(

 

 - ½

---

From: owne...@Softimage.COM [mailto:owne...@Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Halfdan Ingvarsson
Sent: 03-Sep-2008 11:28
To: X...@Softimage.COM
Subject: RE: OT: Google's multithreaded browser

[Joe Laffey]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Halfdan Ingvarsson wrote:

> Turns out that Symantec Anti-Virus toasts it. It can be run without the
> sandbox feature (chrome.exe --no-sandbox) but that sort of removes one
> of the main benefits :(

Weird. My laptop has SAV and Chrome works fine on it.

--
Joe Laffey | Visual Effects for Film and Video
LAFFEY Computer Imaging | -------------------------------------

St. Louis, MO | Show Reel http://LAFFEY.tv/?e11636

USA | -------------------------------------
. | -*- Digital Fusion Plugins -*-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Matt Lind]

While surfing a while back, I stumbled across a nifty little package
called MVP Host (or something like that). Basically some guy fed up
with all the porn and spam on the web took the time to trace the paths
taken by the unwanted content back to their servers of origin. He then
built up a nice HOSTS file you can drag and drop onto your PC that
blocks connections to these servers so if you wander to a site that
pulls content from them, they won't be loaded in your browser. You'll
still get content hosted by the site you visit, however. Since it's a
simple HOSTS file, you can edit it yourself.

I've been using it on my home computer for nearly 2 years and haven't
needed spam filters or spyware since.

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owne...@Softimage.COM
> [mailto:owne...@Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Joe Laffey
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 8:31 AM
> To: X...@Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: OT: Google's multithreaded browser
>

[Luc-Eric Rousseau]

Chrome is what FireFox calls its user customizable UI,
I've never heard the term elsewhere myself, except indeed
in that past Microsoft effort.

> From: Alan Fregtman
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> "chrome" is actually a common term for any browser's UI outside of the
> box where websites render. The buttons, their layout, the borders...
> that's the chrome.
>

> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Scott Parrish <scot...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Does anyone think they might have named it 'Chrome' just to rub salt
in
> > Microsoft's wounds?
> >
> >
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-buffs-its-Chrome/2100-1033_3-209559.html
> >
> > I was looking for some references to Microsoft's ill-fated 3d web
browsing
> > extensions 'chrome' from the mid-late 90s, but it seems like MS has
mostly
> > cleansed the internet of any mention of it other than some random
news
> > articles from around that time. They poured loads of cache into
developing
> > 3d web browsing and then it went kaput more or less.
> >
> > Gotta wonder if their copyright claim to the name 'Chrome' as a web
related
> > piece of software is still valid..

---

[javier]

halfdan. how do you get rid of the awsnap,

i installed it in 3 machines, one in canada, one in us, one in spain with diverse security settings and i get the damn awsnap everywhere.

but the point someone up here makes. re adblock -kills it - i love my firefox without adds

[Halfdan Ingvarsson]

Change the shortcut's target to  '<path>\chrome.exe --no-sandbox'

 

 - ½

---

From: owne...@Softimage.COM [mailto:owne...@Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of javier
Sent: 03-Sep-2008 17:02

To: X...@Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: OT: Google's multithreaded browser

[Raffaele Fragapane]

set the process priority low and it won't happen, regardless of browser.
Nothing different from how it works now with non multithreaded browsers.

[javier]

Rafaele, Peters right at least with this initial release and my dual core laptop

Using ICE and listening to radio with Chrome my machine kept doing weird things - Chrome would freeze at first, radio stream would start sounding like scratched record, then machine went down.
You can test it, listen to streamed bbc news (using windows media player) and mess around, every time you switch windows to XSI the stream will stutter this dont happen with firefox.

[Norm Olsen]

I for one am starting to like Chrome alot. As it is Beta1, who knows what will be fixed prior to the next beta / RC (release candidate) but so far, seems pretty solid. Apparently, Google also amended clause 11.1. It created quite a stir among the web communities. Google caved under pressure ;)

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/google_updates_2.html

Overall, I find the browser very solid and speedy for a first Beta (in better shape than IE for god's sake). I also put Chrome through the acid test:
http://acid3.acidtests.org/

In case you are wondering what the acid test is, it is a site the tests the browser's rendering and scripting capabilities.. (think of it as a wish list of sorts of what web developers / designers would like to see in modern browsers). Up until Chrome's release, I found that OPera 9.52 was the highest performer (sitting at %78) which was just above Safari (which Chrome is based on) at %76. Firefox only managed about %56.. (IE was the worst at %20). So when I tested Chrome, it matched Opera at %78.. not bad for a first time browser. Granted, no browser has passed acid test 3 to date, and this test does not govern how W3C compliant the browser is.

I'm digging this thing.. the more solid browsers, the better (we really need IE ousted). I'm really curious to see what the next iteration improves on.

Cheers,

Norm
________________________________
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:11:45 -0700
> From: javie...@gmail.com
> To: X...@Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: Google's multithreaded browser

>
> Rafaele, Peters right at least with this initial release and my dual core laptop
>
> Using ICE and listening to radio with Chrome my machine kept doing weird things - Chrome would freeze at first, radio stream would start sounding like scratched record, then machine went down.
> You can test it, listen to streamed bbc news (using windows media player) and mess around, every time you switch windows to XSI the stream will stutter this dont happen with firefox.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Raffaele Fragapane wrote:
> set the process priority low and it won't happen, regardless of browser.
> Nothing different from how it works now with non multithreaded browsers.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:18 AM, peter boeykens wrote:
> so you can have a more important performance impact on your renders in the background?
> no thanks ;-)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Fregtman"

> To:

> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:29 PM
> Subject: OT: Google's multithreaded browser
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Slightly OT, but I thought it'd be worthwhile to point out Google's
> "Chrome" browser they just released a day or two ago:
> http://google.com/chrome
>
> It feels really fast, very stable and perhaps most interesting of
> all... it's multithreaded!! (...sort of like ICE, tsk tsk..)
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Alan
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majo...@Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majo...@Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi

_________________________________________________________________

[Sam J. Bowling]

It's funny, out of al my Firefox using friends, I'm the ONLY one who hasn't
had a virus/trojan issue and I've been using IE for years. They still try
to blame it on IE though. ;)

At 08:28 AM 9/3/2008, you wrote:
> I don't trust IE for anything outside the local network. The damn thing
> is a petri dish.
>
> - ½

--
Sam J. Bowling

[Sam J. Bowling]

At 11:25 AM 9/3/2008, you wrote:
>Turns out that Symantec Anti-Virus toasts it. It can be run without the
>sandbox feature (chrome.exe --no-sandbox) but that sort of removes one of
>the main benefits :(
>
> - ½

You use Norton? I don't think the IE is the problem for most people, I
think it's the AV. I thought you were smarter than that. :(

--
Sam J. Bowling

[Halfdan Ingvarsson]

I didn't say IE was the problem. I was just unhappily surprised that
it used the IE connection settings. I much prefer to keep them
separate. And for the record, my computer did get infected through IE,
through an image payload from an ad served from a legitimate website.
It wasn't fun and I lost a crapload of data.

I know that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but it was enough for me.

The AV, on the other hand, is a corporate thing. Can't do a thing
about that.

On 5-Sep-08, at 19:48, "Sam J. Bowling" <sbow...@cox.net> wrote:

> At 11:25 AM 9/3/2008, you wrote:
>> Turns out that Symantec Anti-Virus toasts it. It can be run without
>> the sandbox feature (chrome.exe --no-sandbox) but that sort of
>> removes one of the main benefits :(
>>

>> - ½

[Graham D Clark]

could XSI use V8?
--
Graham D Clark, VFX/CG Supervisor, telephone: fad-take-two,
Warner Brothers, 4000 Warner Blvd. Bldg 38 North, Room 218 Burbank, CA 91522
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamclark | http://www.xsibase.com/articles.php?detail=117

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Alan Fregtman <alan.f...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey guys,

Slightly OT, but I thought it'd be worthwhile to point out Google's
"Chrome" browser they just released a day or two ago:
http://google.com/chrome

It feels really fast, very stable and perhaps most interesting of
all... it's multithreaded!! (...sort of like ICE, tsk tsk..)

Cheers,

  -- Alan

[Halfdan Ingvarsson]

Depends on licensing and/or other legal issues, and feasibility of wrapping up as an activex script engine. Then again, I'm not smart enough to know.

[Alan Jones]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Halfdan Ingvarsson
<hing...@softimage.com> wrote:
> Depends on licensing and/or other legal issues, and feasibility of wrapping
> up as an activex script engine. Then again, I'm not smart enough to know.

How about not using it as ActiveX ;) That sounds like a good move to
me ;) Switch the
help system to a custom version of chrome, all nice and sandboxed and
separate and not
wiping XSI out if (instead of when) it dies. Plus you can move to Qt
too - yay! Wrap python
too and nobody cares about vbscript ;)

There's absolutely no bias in liking this idea.

Cheers,

Alan.

[Nick]

I get 71% on Firefox 3 on that page

> Overall, I find the browser very solid and speedy for a first Beta (in better shape than IE for god's sake). I also put Chrome through the acid test:
> http://acid3.acidtests.org/
>
> In case you are wondering what the acid test is, it is a site the tests the browser's rendering and scripting capabilities.. (think of it as a wish list of sorts of what web developers / designers would like to see in modern browsers). Up until Chrome's release, I found that OPera 9.52 was the highest performer (sitting at %78) which was just above Safari (which Chrome is based on) at %76. Firefox only managed about %56.. (IE was the worst at %20). So when I tested Chrome, it matched Opera at %78.. not bad for a first time browser. Granted, no browser has passed acid test 3 to date, and this test does not govern how W3C compliant the browser is.
>
> I'm digging this thing.. the more solid browsers, the better (we really need IE ousted). I'm really curious to see what the next iteration improves on.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Norm

[christian]

most of the stuff that works slow on firefox (i'm looking at you facebook and myspace, bloated pieces of sh..) somehow seems to stop working at all on chrome after a couple of clicks...

[Norm Olsen]

Results due tend to vary somewhat (in a retest, I too got 71% with FF3 (which is the highest it ever got so far)). Opera (9.52) retested got 84%
I'm not sure as to why these results fluctuate somewhat, but if you keep testing, you will most likely see different results..(usually not so drastic from previous ones).

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:24:08 +0900
> From: nick....@gmail.com

> To: X...@Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: Google's multithreaded browser
>

_________________________________________________________________