Hi owbist good question. I did a search. "The main advantage of Google Earth is the huge amount of resources that it can use since it is running locally on your machine. This allows the Google Earth application to perform much faster and with better features. Browsers were designed to have limited access to resources to prevent malicious people from gaining control of a computer that visits their site. For this reason, Google Maps are restricted to the browser. Users of Google Maps also need to have a speedy internet connection in order to talk to the Google Maps server. It the connection is very poor, the images make take a long time to load or even fail to in certain instances." http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/internet/difference-between-google-maps-and-google-earth/ And "They differ primarily in Google Maps being based on a 2D model and Google Earth using a 3D model. The other significant difference is that Google Maps is a Web application, while Google Earth is a stand-alone program that connects to the Internet." https://sites.google.com/a/kimbridges.net/google-earth-workshop/Home/background-information "Google Earth provides a more powerful, interactive user experience and offers more tools for learning about a location. The Google Earth experience is one of fast, fluid flight -- zooming and rotating and tilting imagery to view the geographic data you're interested in. You can wind along hairpin turns, view buildings in 3D, and fly to businesses near your favorite location," the Mountain View company explains." "Also, Google Earth allows you to easily measure distances and areas, draw lines and shapes, and even import your own data." http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Earth-vs-Google-Maps-65440.shtml

When it comes to security, though, isn't there something to be said in favor of FF + NoScript, esp. in light of all the dangerous things out there that use Java ? (I speak as a huge novice here.) Being able to selectively allow scripts with NoScript (which blocks all by default) is a bit of an advantage to other browsers with functions which only allow users to turn Java on or off. Or, in Opera's case, one can 'edit site preferences' to allow or disallow all scripts on a per site basis, but it's still allowing ALL scripts on a given site. One cannot select which ones to allow/disallow. Giving the user the ability to allow just a script associated with the main site while blocking all other unnecessary scripts from running is a boon for web-surfers, no ? I realize that there are some NoScript wannabees out there (NotScript, ScriptNo) which work with Chrome & Opera, but a lot of comments I read about them suggest they are not as user-friendly and not as efficient as the original NoScript, which (unfortunately for IE, Chrome and Opera users) only works with FF. How important should this matter be for chas045 and the rest of us when choosing a browser ?

I just downloaded chrome and have a couple observations: 1) First, it incorrectly copied my homepage from Firefox, which happens to be google! For some reason it added a couple ransom characters onto the address so it didn't work. Not a good first impression. No big deal but I had to figure out to set a homepage, which is is a bit different in chrome. 2) Bigger problem is that pages load a split second slower compared to Firefox or Explorer (which are immediate). It's akin to the delay you may have seen when using a new format vs. classic in Yahoo mail, Hotmail, etc. if you know what I mean. (Maybe it has something to do with java.) Btw, I have plain vanilla DSL at home, which is affordable, reliable and plenty quick enough. 3) Do they really need the "manila folder look" up top? Kind of boring, (even for my boring self).

Ok, where were we? Oh yeah. After clicking to create a new Ideabook, you get to name it something awesome, like "Recipes and Tips I want to try!" Then below that you can add a description. You can type in whatever you wish, but don't be a smart aleck like this person... Also, you have the option of making it Public, or Private (in case you're embarrassed by the number of posts your saving. I don't embarrass easily!) Then click Create. ... And look at that! You have a new Ideabook! Whoo-hoo! Oh, but you want to save a post with a recipe in it, or some tip, or an idea? Okay... So head on over to the Cooking Forum of Garden Web (coz that's the best place to get recipes, help, tips, and inspiration, and also, it's where all the cool people hang out.) Now, you see a post that inspires you? Okay, see the Save button at the end of that post? Well, don't just sit there, click it! And you get this pop-up. So hit the arrow button and click on the Ideabook you want to put it in (the one you just created would be a good place), and type in (if you wish), a comment to remind you of why you saved that post. Like Jasdip's poppadoms. Never had one, never heard of them before, but sure would like to try them! Ok, click Save to Ideabook... Now, because Houzz thinks everyone should have their nifty Houzz save button, they ask if you want it (even if you already have the darned thing, like I do!). You can click that, or just click no thanks to get rid of the pop-up. And next time you go to your account, you can click on the new Ideabook you just created, and look at the various posts you saved : ) I'll just add this: It's a good thing to make that little note of why you saved the post (unlike me when I first started doing this), because you would otherwise have a zillion unlabeled posts, and what if you were looking for something specific? Have fun Jasdip! PS: I didn't know one could save posts to Ideabooks until recently. ...back to the sawdust and sweat : /