Slashdot Log In
Google Releases Chrome V2.0
Posted by
timothy
on Thu May 21, 2009 04:30 PM
from the windows-only-tut-mir-leid dept.
from the windows-only-tut-mir-leid dept.
RadiusK writes "Google has released the second major version of the Chrome browser. This version features more speed improvements thanks to a newer version of V8 JavaScript engine and WebKit. JavaScript-heavy web pages will now run about 30% faster. Other new features include form autofill, fullscreen mode, and improved New Tab page. If you're already using Google Chrome, you'll be automatically updated with these new features soon. If you haven't downloaded Google Chrome, you can get the latest version at google.com/chrome." A version for Linux or OS X would be nice.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it have AdBlock Plus?
As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome needs an adblock plus.
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're feeling paranoid, and can read C, please feel free to peer-review the code.
Here, I'll make it easy for you. http://sourceforge.net/projects/ijbswa [sourceforge.net]
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Interesting)
Chromium is opensource.
Fork your git branch ... ...
Rewrite AdBlock plus for Chromium
???
Profit !
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Funny)
Fork your git branch
Please watch your language.
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Informative)
It's been done: SRWare Iron.
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)
They specifically listed AdBlock as one of the things they wanted to support through their extension API, which is still in development.
Parent
Re:Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging b (Score:4, Insightful)
I have that problem as well, but then only on the machines where I've installed every add-on I could find. So something tells me it's more my fault than Mozilla's.
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Interesting)
You do know they are slowly backing off and Mozilla is looking strangely at Google? [slashdot.org]
Parent
No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait forever (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently the Slashdot developers use Chrome on a mighty fast machine; otherwise they'd realize the shame they've brought onto themselves by writing that horribly slow Javascript code and commit hara-kiri.
Parent
Re:No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait fore (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I switched to the Chrome beta almost full time.
It doesn't lock up on bad Flash sites, it just kills flash (good riddance), it doesn't fail to load JavaScript on Slashdot (Firefox), it doesn't sit on 1GB of my RAM for no apparent reason (Firefox) and it doesn't crash for no apparent reason (Safari).
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Insightful)
Not ditching it before it also has NoScript. I seriously couldn't care less about JavaScript performance, I donot want applications in my browser.
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)
Go check out AdSweep. It works just fine in Chrome. Maybe it's not AdBlock plus, but it works in Chrome without much too fuss.
http://www.adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]
Parent
Re:AdBlock Plus - And normal UI! (Score:5, Interesting)
On Windows, Chrome's window decorations are always in a horrible bubbly Fisher-Price style that somewhat mirrors the default XP/Vista themes. The application does not honor system-wide windowing theme settings. This is stupid. You've kinda come to expect media players to do this (it's still annoying, but it's become the accepted convention) but serious applications like a browser that I'm going to be looking at all day should not lock themselves out of the OS's visual theme system. I'm stuck with one app which seems like an alien on my system because all the colors and widgets are completely different to everything else. It's as bad as bloody Apple!
Another thing I suspect the GP is talking about is the menu. Oh, I mean the toolbar button. Or do I mean menu? Who knows. Take any normal application on Windows that has a menu - press ALT. Now you can navigate the menu option with the cursors or with menu shortcut keys. Google decided that I didn't need this ability and hacked out the well understood, standard concept menu and replaced it with a little popup off of two toolbar buttons. And for a cherry on top, put those icons at the opposite side of the window from where you'd go hunting for a missing menu anyway.
Ooo lessee... how about allowing the application's controls (in this case, the tab bar) to impinge upon the applications titlebar and moving the apps title from the left to the right. This is just more of the kind of utterly pointless "gloatware" interface decisions that often characterises Apple software on Windows. "Our scrap of software is the single most important thing you'll ever use on your computer so - obviously - it's important that it break established visual style and usage conventions to remind you how important is is!". Gloatware.
These seem like trivial things but interface conventions are of huge value to users who lack confidence in front of a computer. Once you've learned that there's always a Menu and it always has File, Edit, View and Help on it - you've got a huge head-start on getting to know any new bit of software.
There are other things that annoy me about Chrome like that stupid is-it-or-isn't-it-status-bar; curiously referring to its SSL preferences as "computer-wide" in the options page (it's going to change SSL behaviour across all apps and OS?); Bookmark interface; yadda yadda AdBlock, NoScript, yadda.
I feel better now XD
Parent
Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)
A version for Linux or OS X would be nice.
This is incredibly sad. How hard can it be with their resources to include Mac and Linux?
Re:Windows Only (Score:4, Insightful)
It takes time to develop software. It doesn't matter what resource you have, beyond a certain point, it still takes lots of time.
And they are working on both, you know. They're open-source. You can go look at them. You can go help out - isn't that what open source advocates tell you to do every time you complain about an open source app?
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:4, Interesting)
All that you say is true, but there is something not credible about the length of time that it has taken for them to get this done. It seems to have taken longer for them to do the linux port than it did for them to build the entire windows version.
Having said that, I don't really suspect there's anything sinister going on here ... something tells me it is more to do with there being fundamentally more difficult challenges on linux than windows. When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it. I strongly suspect that Google is being a perfectionist here and are simply not willing to release something that doesn't meet the incredibly high bar they have set for chrome.
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Interesting)
When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it.
Your issue with Firefox probably is actually with Pango. IMHO, Pango renders text far more beautifully than any version of Windows does, but it IS a lot slower. You used to be able to disable Pango when building Firefox; I'm not sure whether that is still possible.
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)
For a volunteer project, yes. Google Chrome is a free, open source, commercial project. It's a professional, corporate-planned, -managed, and -funded product.
They've now released Windows v2, after originally claiming the Linux version will be ready "as soon as possible" eight months ago during the original hype & release of v1. Google is due for some flack about this. Not to mention the lack of Mac version.
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Informative)
I am using the Linux version on a daily basis. It is usable, and the speed blows FF3 firmly out of the water, to the point that I don't want to go back to FF. Of course, it does crash every once in a while, and there are many rough edges.
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)
Google only targets the platform where IE is predominant - that is, Windows. On the other platforms, Firefox or Safari will do the job that Chrome is doing on Windows. Either way, it suits Google's strategy.
Parent
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to ask the same question. I now work for a small startup. Most of us develop on Linux, a couple on Windows, and a couple on Mac. If we could afford to do a linux-only version, we would. But in order to have any kind of marketshare on the desktop, we need to output a Windows version.
The mac and linux versions mostly "just work" and simply need testing. But about a month before release, the entire team needs to stop what they're doing and get the Windows version fully working and tested. Windows development is a resource hog (in terms of people). In some ways, Windows is just different, but it seems in many ways, Windows is deliberately incompatable with anything else at the source code level. Windows makes it as difficult as possible to be cross-platform.
As a result, we get the Windows version out and working before we have time to test the Linux and Mac versions. It kinda sucks to spend that much time and resources on a Windows version. It's either that, or re-route our development resources to Windows-only and ignore the other platforms. Of course, we don't want to do that.
Parent
No plug in support (Score:3, Insightful)
No plug-ins, not usable.
Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses. Mouse gestures would be nice. Those two things would go really far towards the acceptance of Chrome.
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Insightful)
"By the masses"? You honestly think the masses use Adblock?
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Funny)
I've got adblock plus, but I dont' go to masses anymore. Too preachy. I like to limit the ability of other people to tell me what to do.
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Interesting)
Way ahead of you.
http://adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Insightful)
Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses.
You only say that because it's how IE became so popular.~
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Interesting)
If the masses were blocking ads, what would happen?
1) The web would become a marvelous place without any ad anywhere.
2) Tons of web site would just close
3) Tons of web site would require you to pay per view
4) New, more intrusive, difficult to block, kind of ads would go mainstream. (similar to spam filters vs spammers).
To tell the truth, 1) would only happen in a fairy tale.
Parent
Re:No plug in support (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't click on ads, ever. (Not even AdSense ads.)
How does my Adblock/NoScript usage hurt the websites that I vist?
Parent
I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (Score:5, Informative)
But I can't live with the invasion of privacy [wikipedia.org]. Sorry :(
So why not get Iron [srware.net]?
Parent
Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I buy into "usage tracking is an invasion of privacy" mantra. It seems to me this is a modern day "taking your photograph will steal your soul" sort of superstition. Is the internet not a public place? I'm not sure what kind of privacy people expect while using it.
Parent
Re:Provokes an Interesting Question (Score:4, Informative)
If Google, an open source project, sends out all sorts of data that you might consider an invasion of privacy, is the open source community free to fork it?
Chrome is not an open source project. Chromium is an open source project, and yes, you're free to fork that, as per the terms of the licenses [google.com].
Parent
Here we go again (Score:4, Funny)
Oh great, another post about Chrome. Brace yourself for a wave of 3 general responses:
"No Linux version, so it sucks." - The Jealous Bitch
"It doesn't have (feature from Firefox), I refuse to use it." - The High and Mighty Prick
"I'm all out of tin-foil, you can't trust Google." - The Stallman Worshipers
js rendering is not the bottleneck (Score:4, Interesting)
for me, most of the lag I experience is latency related. Once the webpage gets to me, I'm fairly happy if it takes under a few seconds to render.
Then, I'd like a stable connection, and working webpages (ie without bugs).
Next, I'd like more intelligent tabbing: one which tracks my current surfing location as a whole, and bookmarks that. (I'm thinking a tree structure for tabs, with parents and children and all that; and a dynamic bookmark, that would follow me clicks, for when I'm reading online documentation, or any multipage document.)
Ok, after all that, now I'm interested in js performance. Sorry :(
[a question for those who want adblock in this browser. You realize that while Google makes themselves out to be a search and indexing company, that they are really a very high tech advertising company, don't you? For them to implement adblocking, that would undercut their entire business model. If they did it anyway, and left their ads unblocked?, well, that would just be illegal, under antitrust laws.]
I still prefer Chrome. (Score:5, Funny)
Say what you want, but Chrome is my default browser in Vista, and has been since it came out. I don't visit a lot of random sites, and ads aren't that big a deal.
The reason I like Chrome? Its topbar is thinner and more elegant that Firefox's by default. Really, that's it.
Otherwise, I'm your typical nerd. I run ArchLinux, use Firefox+Firebug for development, and I doubt I could get a girlfriend if I tried (I married the girl who dated me in highschool, before she realized what she had done, so that's okay)
Chrome without Privacy Issues (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you concerned about the privacy issues surrounding Google Chrome, there is a virtually identical FOSS alternative that Google can't farm data from. See, http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php [srware.net]
Re:Chrome without Privacy Issues (Score:4, Funny)
$ aptitude search chromium
p chromium - fast paced, arcade-style, scrolling space shooter
Now that's the browser for me!
Parent
Does it have "No-Adblock"-Block? (Score:5, Funny)
Passes Acid3 (Score:4, Interesting)
FAQ (Score:5, Funny)
A. Not really. However, in order to make it up to you, we are allowing you to download an install a chrome-themed webkit window that doesn't have any of the features, is unstable and does not integrate with your OS at all. Of course, as a precondition you first need to find it through a huge maze of links. Please ignore your OS currently got much better native browsers using webkit anyway...
Q. Is it true Chrome is open source software like some articles said?
A. No, Chrome is not open source software. It does not provide you any of the basic reassurances Open source software actually gives you. To make up for this, we invented Chromium, which you can find after diving to another maze of links and compile yourself. We designed Chromium as just a way to selectively get free code. Please, don't use it as it will give you the basic FOSS freedoms and we do not want that for our browser.
Q. Is it true that other non-IE browsers like Firefox, Opera and Safari are also working on javascript speed making the only important chrome feature worthless?
A. Definitely, as a matter of fact, since some of their new versions actually beat Chrome in memory usage and they have no problem in working in many platforms -integrating correctly with the OS, even windows' themes - , there's really no point in using Chrome unless you want a porn tab or want to follow hype. Ok, to be fair those browsers' new versions do have something like the porn tab and each have always had their fair amount of over-hyped fans... Of course, chrome might still be faster, but this is due to the fact we implemented the javascript VM using as much crazy, unmaintainable windows hack as possible. But don't worry, the only web site in which you might actually notice the difference is one we made in which we placed a bunch of demos designed to stress test javascript...
Re:Still waiting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lack of development? There is development happening for OS X and Linux. It's just not ready for end-users yet.
Because development isn't simply a matter of money. It takes time to develop software, and organisational/human/communication factors impose an upper limit on how fast development can move. Mozilla have a codebase where 15 years have been spent in development. No amount of money can compensate for that head-start. Mozilla aren't developing any faster than Google, they are further ahead because they've been doing it longer.
The original releases of Netscape were far, far simpler products. I could write "Hello, World" in 30 seconds that would run on more platforms than Chrome - does that make me better than Google? No, because the task of writing a modern web browser is substantially greater than writing "Hello, World" - and substantially greater than writing an early 90s web browser.
Yes, because they had less to do. If your codebase is a fraction of the size and has only a handful of features, of course it's easier to port it to other systems. By the way, have you tried running those early Netscape versions on Linux and OS X?
Parent