![]() ![]() ![]() to reflect program version with official chrome builds, it's at 8.x while chrome is climbing up to versions 9.x and 10.x to change the name from something less memorable like SRWare Iron to something like "Chrome stripped of privacy invading features" to use the official chrome website for extensions to host the source code on,, or Google Code (instead hosting 3 zip files on *puke* ) If we don't want another niche browser, someone tell these guys/this person. What happens if SRWare Iron inherits a critical vulnerability from chrome that is being exploited in the wild, will the developers find the time to update in a similar fashion as the chrome developers would? Unless we check the thousands of lines of source code every time a new version is released, how do we know their not slipping in their own backdoor? maybe push chromium developers to care a little more about users privacy thus eliminating the need for SRWare Iron. SRWare Iron Can't Be Trusted - At Least Not Yet! from one Disgruntled Grizzly Bear to another. They've developed a so called privacy oriented browser that played on the paranoia of the general public for ad revenue as their prerogative all along.ĭid you know what the developer was quoted as saying? Google is Evil and the German people don't like Google, well cool I'm not bothered with that, that's all cool, I don't personally trust Google either. ![]() Then what else do they now do, run Google Adsense on their site and support running Google banners on their startpage site also. Look, you call Google evil then you are seen supporting Google, what is that telling us? I'll tell you, one big mixed bag of messages that should make you think real hard. So can this developer really be trusted and should we really support SRWare Iron.SRWare Iron is a Browser, Google's Web browser Chrome thrilled with an extremely fast site rendering, a sleek design, and innovative features. I still can't believe that it will vary to such a significant degree that SRWare is going to come out as an ugly pig eating up more than its fair share of resources.But it also gets critic from data protection specialists, for reasons such as creating a unique user ID or the submission of entries to Google to generate suggestions. It goes without saying the numbers (for Linux versions of Firefox & SRWare) will slightly vary. It is obvious but still worth pointing out that my task manager screenshot was for Windows only. I've been using it on a few rare occasions, but much like Eric, I have been such a long time Firefox/Palemoon user that I am not switching over. I like the way it renders pages and it might be even faster than the latest version Palemoon. The latest version is by far the fastest. I can't remember exactly when but I have tried various versions of it for about 1 year now. I've been using SRWare since it was mentioned by Corrine on this forum a while back. So it seems it's on par with Firefox's in terms of memory usage. SRWare ~134,900 K (6 separate processes as shown in task manager) To be fair, I loaded up 4 websites in Firefox (SNF's forum was just one of them) and then I loaded those exact same 4 websites in SRWare.įirefox ~152,000 K (128,000 + Plugin container 24,000 K) ** At the time you took that screenshot, how many tabs did you have open in Firefox and how many tabs for SRWare Iron? I did a little test here myself to see just how much of a memory hog SRWare is because I have reason to doubt your assertion that it eats up too many resources. If you're implying that it is a memory hog by posting the screenshot, you'll need to post more details. All applications eat up some amount of memory that is unavoidable. As mentioned before, iron is noticably fast but seems to eat up resources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |