I have had the exact same experience! I have about 15 bookmarklets that work well on Chrome in my bookmarks bar. I pretty much don't even try scripts/bookmarklets that are labeled as "for Greasemonkey". I have tried using Firefox 3.7 (new pre-beta version I think) again just to see how things are. I find Firefox now loads almost as quickly as Chromium and renders pages almost as quickly as Chromium, BUT, it eats up WAY more system resources, especially as more and more extensions are added. Just my experience... your mileage may vary.
On Sep 21, 10:43 pm, Fx <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 20, 1:06 pm, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have some ideas. Maybe the extension system could be just > > bookmarklets that automatically run on specified sites at start up or > > other specific events. What if bookmarklets could contain newline > > characters. What if there was a bookmarklets folder to the far left of > > your bookmarks bar that looked like a gear icon. > > Extensions and bookmarklets are a little different. Most bookmarklets > developed for IE, FF, and/or Opera I've tested work fine w/o > modification for Chrome. I keep my most frequently used ones on the > bookmark bar, and less frequently used ones in a folder on the > bookmark bar. > > I've had mixed success with the extensions developed for Chrome. Some > work well, others don't. It's an evolving situation.... > > I've had almost no success with Greasemonkey scripts on Chrome. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
