Google Chrome Is Out of Beta 444
BitZtream writes "This morning Google announced that Chrome is out of Beta, and showing improvements for plugin support, most notably video speed improvements. It also contains an updated javascript engine, claiming that it operates 1.4 times faster than the beta version, and work has begun on an extensions platform to allow easier integration with the browser by third parties."
Surprised (Score:2, Interesting)
But does it run Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
All these speed boosts annoy me. I open it FF in Linux, it runs at roughly 1/2 the speed it does in Windows. Of course, I've been using the same profile for roughly 5 years, so that might have something to do with it (and I've only been a Linux user for 1.5 it's a miracle my profile still works.)
Still, when I reboot to Windows, Chrome vs. Firefox? Can't tell the difference, in terms of speed. Usability, Firefox wins hands down. Hotkeys, flashblock, Firebug (when flashblock isn't enough), reopen closed tab. ( I don't want that memory freed every time I close a tab, thank you very much. I'm just doing it to unclutter my workspace. I may need that tab back in a minute, and I'd rather it not vaporize to reclaim 1% of my memory, especially when I am doing nothing with it but browse the web. )
Call me when:
a) Chrome is available on Linux with similar benchmarks
b) I can easily correct my error if I accidentally close a tab.
c) They give me my menu bar back / provide analogous hotkeys for every option concealed behind the buttons.
Attn: Network admins Security issue (Score:1, Interesting)
This program installs itself to %userprofile% instead of %programfiles%
lUsers without admin privileges can install this, introducing unwanted software to your network and creating security issues.
I believe Google must fix this, but I don't think they will unless people start demanding it.
Any suggestions as to where we can do that where they might actually listen?
I know its unpopular to bag on the Mighty Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't forget the WebKit team (Score:5, Interesting)
Except Chrome is light-years better than any other Webkit browser out there. They had some truly innovative and necessary ideas when it came to a multi-process, sandboxed browswer with a virtualized javascript engine. Saying that Webkit deserves all the praise isn't remotely fair. If Webkit alone was enough to light the world on fire, we'd be using Safari. And despite the benchmarks of nightly builds of pure Webkit running like a speed demon, Safari sure doesn't.
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't care if they want to run an updater when I'm using Chrome. But I don't want software installing stupid stuff to run in the background when the software isn't being used. Its why I hate iTunes and Tivo Desktop. I'm even a little annoyed at Sun (Java Updater).
My machine is over 5 years old. I don't have the resources to allow every new piece of software to run some updater in the background, nor do I have the resources to go out and by a new machine right now.
Re:Neat - Mac OS X ? Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I find it hard to believe that one can't understand hitting 90% of the market as quickly as possible and them filling in as much of the remaining 10%.
If you ever intend to hit that 10%, you're better off starting there.
Keep in mind, Windows/IE is always the odd one out. Stick to POSIX, and it pretty much works everywhere except Windows. Stick to standard html/css/javascript, and it pretty much works everywhere except IE.
We keep an ie.css and an ie.js file, for that reason. We develop in Firefox, and only fire up IE to verify that it still works. If it doesn't, we then add some hack to support IE -- much easier than trying to take a completely hacked-up version developed for IE, and adding the cross-browser compatibility after the fact.
Re:just what we need (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. They add some trim to the product and make a much bigger profit margin by selling the same vehicle under a high-end brand name. Basically, it all boils down to hoping people won't notice that they are paying a huge premium for trivial enhancements to the same basic vehicle. I'm not saying it is a good practice, but as a business practice, it does pay off, at least so long as the market for luxury goods doesn't dry up. When it does, of course, if you aren't making enough money off your low-end products, you're screwed.
It makes far less sense if the two products aren't build using the same parts, of course, which is why the car analogy falls flat when talking about Google. (It does work for Sun's StarOffice/OpenOffice somewhat.) To explain the Google bifurcation, you have to go back a little farther to an ancient proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Guess which browser is the enemy. :-)
Re:just what we need (Score:3, Interesting)
If we were talking about something being sold, product differentiation would be one means of attempting to achieve some form of price discrimination.(1)
That part of the equation doesn't apply here (though it will to any of the car-analogies cropping up), but product differentiation is still a recognised way to build brand loyalty by creating (perceived) differences and thereby value.
People don't use Firefox and think "Gee, isn't Google great?" – that's the (a) reason for Chrome.
A further reason is that having R&D in your own company can have positive synergies (apologies for the buzzword, but it applies here) with other projects, which don't occur from simply supporting external development.
Those are mid-to-long-term strategic considerations, while combining the projects simply to save money would be rather more a short-term oriented decision. Which isn't necessarily a criticism.
(1) Price discrimination is the concept of charging each buyer the full extent of what he is willing to pay for a good, rather than the same price as everyone else. For example, school-children don't have much money to pay for cinema tickets, and wouldn't come if they had to pay adult prices. They're still willing to pay more than the costs they incur, though, so the cinema operators increase their profits by charging them less. You'll see it all around if you pay attention.
Re:Addons (Score:3, Interesting)
And why aren't you moderated Insightful?
I turn off my ABP on sites I frequently visit as a gesture of support, though I'm sure many people kept theirs on all the time. I used to too but my conscience is slowly catching up to me.
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Interesting)
Silently installing a retarded updater that's doing who-knows-what is about one-fourth of the reason I loathe Chrome and will never use it again. I'll reserve all the other reasons I hate it for another comment, but I really don't see why getting rid of the dumb updater was such a chore, or why it was there in the first place.
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, I killed it and fired up a video game. It was slower.
I know it would be a hell of a coincidence if it was something else causing you problems, but... are you sure it was Chrome?
I just tried the same thing; fired it up (and updated, as I haven't run it since it came out - back then it did not have smooth scrolling).
When I killed it, the updater is sure there, but it is using 516K.
Of the 73 processes I have running, it takes third from last in memory use. Seriously, RAM for older computers is very cheap these days; if you notice when you are short 516K, pick up a gig for $15, regardless if you use chrome or not. Or am I missing something?
Re:Good one. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Addons (Score:1, Interesting)
I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.
Maybe they keep some sites free but ads also keep the internet expensive! For those of us in countries like Australia where "unlimited" plans just don't exist (we pay by the gigabyte) advertising is often a waste of bandwidth. So far only Google has figured out that advertisements can be a few bytes of text vs kilo/megabytes of blinking images/video/flash.
Re:Addons (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I do think the number of processes is important. So many apps install permanently resident updaters (Java, Acrobat, Flash, etc.) when it would suffice perfectly for those apps to simply check for a new version when their base app is invoked. It's presumptuous and greedy of those companies to assume their app is important enough that it should be resident 24/7.
It's a very popular theory that Google developed Chrome simply to put another logo in front of users' faces. That's why Microsoft took on Netscape. That's why Google invests in Firefox. It's not like these companies profit fiscally by spending R&D on this free software.
So yes, I do argue that Google's engineers were thinking of this face time when they designed an always-resident, inefficient, and unneccesary updater. If they cared to do it right they'd do it like Firefox.
Targeted advertising (Score:3, Interesting)