I would agree on this, it seems like an awful lot of feature requests that really don't impact much. The only thing I really want to see at this point are bug fixes and of course a plugin framework.
On Feb 20, 6:46 pm, Dremation <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't the idea of Chrome to provide a lightweight yet powerful > browsing experience? So if we load it up with nice visual effects not > only are we consuming more resources to provide the visual effects but > it also means less time spent on the core functionality of the > browser. I think the Devs need to spend more time on the core of the > engine rather then the visually appealing effects. > > On Feb 19, 9:59 am, PhistucK <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Right, but when it is visible, it can be a more stylish throbber. > > ☆PhistucK > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 17:48, Meok <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chrome doesn't treat the throbber in the conventional manner, in that > > > there is no inactive state. In other words, it's not always visible > > > and only appears while a tab is loading. They would have to pin a > > > throbber on the far right of the toolbar like Netscape. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
