[Software comments] early introduction to the use of the cheetah Browser

I just tried Kingsoft's cheetah browser. This is mainly based on the chrome kernel. At the same time, dual-core browsers with spare ie kernel are also provided for web pages that focus on IE standards. It is the first dual-core browser in China, but I have already used maxthon3 and QQ browsers before I know it. They are both dual-core, so it is unclear who they were first, there is no strength or obligation to clarify. Here, we will simply talk about the usage experience from the perspective of common users.

1. appearance. Advantages and disadvantages. Before m2 and GB, the T kernel of IE was used. m3 adopts the same w kernel and T kernel dual kernel as chrome, but the interface is completely in its own style. The overall structure of the Cheetah and chrome is very similar, so m3 inherits the W kernel, while the cheetah directly inherits chrome, but there are indeed many improvements in details, the visual and operation are much more comfortable. But the most eye-catching and most regrettable thing is that its "Cheetah" icon is very ugly, and the installation interface is even more like a thunderous image. However, a cute leopard in the signature image used by an administrator in the Forum looks much more pleasing to the eye. Of course, it doesn't mean that you have to take a cute route. If you can make a little more exquisite, such as the thunder icon, you can, and the cheetah has a bit of Firefox lineage, especially the mouth type is super uncomfortable, it is just a few minutes of radians, it gives people the feeling has changed. Especially for the complete image on the installation interface, the body and legs cannot be mentioned, sadly. Although on the big surface, this is only a point, but it is the most eye-catching and key point, not to mention failure.

In addition, on the page latency wait and crash report page, the color of the cheetah button changes to a consistent tone with the system style, which is good, the figure of the subject is still Chrome's ugly face. I have previously said that Chrome is a perfect place. It is incredible that cheetahs directly inherit this because they have paid so much attention to the improvement of Interface Details. Of course, this may not be counted on chrome, but it may be w kernel, but it should be changeable.

2. Page processing. The cheetah may have a longer page processing wait time than chrome, but it is still a little short, so the wait box will pop up sometimes and sometimes it will flash. Why? Are you too confident about your performance? The question is, what are your testing-based machine configurations and what are your users? In terms of hardware and software installation, there are many situations where you often need to be patient, rather than worrying about it. Switching between tags on different pages also always feels like re-loading and drawing. This seems to be a problem with W kernel. Chrome zooms it up, which is relatively better on m3. Using chrome or the current Cheetah on my computer is not as quick as using the IE kernel-Based Multi-page browser GB. On the one hand, it is true that low configuration cannot take full advantage of the performance characteristics of the software, on the other hand, it has to be said that the performance of low configuration machines is not good.

3. download. As mentioned on the official cheetah website, it has indeed been improved. Chrome is very problematic in this regard. The downloaded files are roughly arranged on the download display bar, and the close icon is also very ugly. To understand the download status, you have to endure the poor display. However, the exquisite graphic integration practices and animation effects of the Cheetah are worthy of recognition.

4. Extend the toolbar. Currently, the extended toolbar shares location space with the address bar and search bar. Therefore, the address bar will be short when the extension tool is installed too much. What if there are more than 10 Extension tools? I haven't tried it yet. Chrome has been useless for a long time, and it cannot be remembered here. However, Firefox provides additional extension tools for location change.

5. Adjust the layout. Currently, the "user-defined interface" of the cheetah can only display the favorite column and the search column, and the position cannot be adjusted. Other browsers generally have the sidebar (or left or right) and sidebar functions. You can easily drag and drop icons to adjust the icon positions. In this regard, the cheetah still needs to be improved.

6. App Store. The home page of the cheetah App Store looks good, but the actual good plug-ins are just a few on the home page. If you click More plug-ins, you will jump to the discussion forum of the cheetah, which looks very messy, don't say it's hard to find it, that is, whether it's credible or not. How should we create "more" pages? The cheetah should also do some work to make the "App Store" worthy of the name of "Store", instead of being called a mall with a bed. As a matter of fact, since the cheetah is based on chrome, almost all the plug-ins of chrome can also be used on it. There is no need to worry about resources, but a little business contact is required. Today, with the popularity of online app stores, the connection with those authors can be reached, so this work is not difficult, and some do not even need to be contacted. Their plug-ins have donation buttons, no matter how you use it, as long as you maintain the integrity of the plug-in itself, it is to support them to get donations.

7. Memory. It seems similar to chrome. The cheetah says it is smaller than it. It doesn't mean much more. In terms of page processing and this, Chrome is not doing very well, it cannot be worse. Otherwise, I will not install the Cheetah. The number of processes is also several. Of course, these are just from the user's point of view, and compared with the previous impressions, there is no rigorous practical assessment as there are technical articles with commercial purposes.

8. Volume. Although the cheetah is a dual-core, it obviously does not need to install IE, but calls the user's original ie kernel. Therefore, the installation volume is not larger than or even smaller than that of chrome, probably because my chrome installation volume contains some usage records and plug-ins, and the work of the cheetah in localization (that is, to delete some useless language files) it also reduces unnecessary volumes.

Summary (selection of multiple browsers ):

View common text or image content-based websites. It is easy to use lightweight GB (without plug-ins, It is very small. Plug-ins are only 8 Mb), the open and switch labels are fast, and self-made Plug-ins are also very easy, but there are too many plug-ins, selecting a plug-in or selecting other Menus under the plug-in item is a bit of a hassle. And friends who are more interested in visual effects may not be satisfied. M2 is a little better than GB visual, but it is not creative enough.

When viewing video websites or games for leisure, you can use m3, which is better in terms of vision and video download, as well as built-in online update jokes, and the small mode dedicated for playing games with multiple accounts, it is a powerful tool.

When viewing HTML5/css3 pages and pages with a large number of JS computing pages, or when you want to study the Page code content, select Firefox or chrome (now I have replaced Chrome with a cheetah), OR M3, its development tool is the same as chrome, but its other "rich" features (especially the "joke") are useless for developers.

In short, GB, M3, Firefox, Cheetah, and opera all have their own advantages and cannot be completely replaced by each other. Chrome seems to be replaced by a cheetah. I have unloaded it. I can't reinstall it.