Google Releases Chrome 2.0 Pre-Beta 326
Nick Fletcher writes "Just a few short months after the initial release, Google has released a pre-beta version of Google Chrome 2.0. It sports a few new features including form auto-completion, full-page zoom, 'profiles,' and Greasemonkey support. It seems the only notable feature would be profiles, which allows users to separate out their homepage, history, and bookmarks on a per user or category basis. It seems Google is still playing catch-up but they're definitely moving at a pace unknown to some of their competition. The full list of new features is available in the release notes."
Not a great 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too many exciting new features, I'm not sure why they call it 2.0.
Form autocomplete? It's about time. Not that I like the feature anyway, it's too dumb. 90% of the time it doesn't offer any suggestion (wild guess, if a web site asks for my name, maybe my browser might know the answer). The rest of the time (10%), it has a fifty-fifty chance of guessing right.
Full-page zoom and auto-scroll? Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.
Profiles? Ok, could be moderately useful. It sort of conflicts with the OS's notion of swapping between users. So I'd use it more as a workaround because bookmarks are hard to organize.
Greasemonkey scripts? That's my favorite. But it's for power users only. Just read the instructions and imagine your grandma giving it a try:
To enable this experimental feature you need to right-click on Chrome's shortcut from your desktop, select Properties and add --enable-user-scripts in the Target field. While you're in the Properties dialog, click on "Open File Location" and create a folder named User Scriptsin the user data directory, where you'll need to manually save scripts.
--
FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net]
profiles vs fast user switching (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the point of profiles in a web browser when you have fast user switching (and/or whatever MS calls their equivalent function)? Seems like that's the point of a multiuser operating system...
Forget Greasemonkey... (Score:4, Insightful)
Adblock? (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that Adblock really doesn't impact google's ads -- it primarily blocks graphical/flash crap ads, at least using the filtersets I subscribe to, so it wouldn't hurt google to allow it, and might even help them (absent other flashing "punch the monkey" and "abort the fetus" ads google's often-relevant text ads tend to stand out more.)
Do it google! Let us bock ads and mix tabs!
Re:profiles vs fast user switching (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of people I've seen using windows never log out to switch users. They are automatically logged in as Administrator or whatever admin account was created when windows was installed. Switching user profiles makes perfect sense in a browser.
Re:Not a great 2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.
I'm not sure MOST people want to scale the entire page. Most of the time I use zooms I just want the text smaller, not picture and all that. Usually it's either because I want to read more text or I can't see the text well enough for whatever reason.
One note on profiles ... if you install something for "all users," it doesn't change when you use it as a different user, does it? So manybe the profile thing is useful. Plus it may be that you want to have different profiles yourself, and not have to switch Windows users to change it.
I can see it being useful, for example, having a different profile at work than I do at school than I do at home.
Re:Adblock? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Because FF codebase is complete shit (Score:0, Insightful)
All that vitriol, and Firefox is still the best browser on the market. That must really burn your ass.
Re:profiles vs fast user switching (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of one reason, especially if (Hello? Google guys? You listening?) you can have both profiles open in separate windows at the same time. The first example that comes to mind is that I have two Google accounts, one for personal stuff and one for work stuff. Each has it's own email, calendar, documents, etc. Every now and then I'll be logged into one account and need something that is in the other account, so I have to log out, log into other account, get what I need, log out again... You can sort of short cut the process using incognito windows, or using two separate browsers, but neither of those feels like a real solution to me. There are enough times that I've thought that it would be nice to be running two (or more) browser windows each with it's own independent "cookie space" that I'd really like to see somebody add this as a feature.
Beyond that, why assume that multiple browser profiles must automatically belong to different users? If they are simple enough to manage and use (something nobody has really done so far) there's no reason that a web developer couldn't have one profile for testing and one for email/ calendar/ other browsing. Or even a separate profile for each client. Maybe you need to use a proxy server on your laptop when you connect from certain locations. Again, this is something that I have always accomplished in the past by using separate browsers - e.g. Opera goes through the proxy, while Firefox connects to the internet directly.
Re:Google Chrome? I will not bite...yet (Score:3, Insightful)
With a User Agent switcher, your school and bank's website would likely work just fine.
Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (Score:3, Insightful)
They better release a truly Open Source version that can be compiled on any system.
Just because it's open source, doesn't mean it has to be platform agnostic.
Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Boo hoo..
OSS doesn't have to mean using an OSOS. One of the tenets of the GPL is that you're free to use the code for *whatever* purpose you see fit, not solely (or at all) the purpose envisaged by the author. You can't have it both ways.
Re:Not a great 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Just read the instructions and imagine your grandma giving it a try:
Your grandma isn't going to be using pre-beta software. It's like that because the features is far from complete yet and is thus not enabled by default. It's not going to be like that in the final version.
Re:profiles vs fast user switching (Score:1, Insightful)
On my Vista machine (6 month old laptop with 4GB RAM), it's extremely slow user switching, so I appreciate it.
Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that Chrome will never have AdBlock Plus and NoScript.
It's all about control. Firefox allows you to control what you read. Many advertising companies try to change readers into time-wasting, ad-reading, money-wasting robots.
Those who don't like being the target of aggressive behavior and want control over their lives will need to continue to use Firefox, no matter how technically superior Chrome is.
Re:Finally, a Mac version! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:3, Insightful)
You make a good point. But, it's not ads per se that are so evil. If ads are done right, they aren't annoying. Look at Google's home page vs. Yahoo's. Google has a history of developing clean unobtrusive interfaces. I wouldn't be too surprised if Google let you install AdBlock or some other ways made browsing tolerable. I have hope.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing that Chrome will never have AdBlock Plus and NoScript.
You can still use external things like a hosts file to make sure you don't get ads. Besides, there's a strong argument to be made that most people don't use adblock in the first place, and that its use is immoral.
It's all about control. Firefox allows you to control what you read.
And Chrome is open source, allowing anyone to use and control it that wants to as long as they play by the same rules that Google does. If they hadn't open sourced Chrome, I would agree with you. As it is, I believe Google when they say that they want to push the browser market in the direction of supporting better web apps. Google Docs, GMail, and Google Maps all have deficiencies arising from the shortcomings of browsers in general. Google's struggling to find revenue sources outside of advertising and they've chosen to stick to the web to do it (a good choice IMHO). Your diatribe against advertising is all well and good, but their behavior with Chrome just doesn't support it.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you just want everything for free, right? Google are supposed to eat air or something, and have nothing to work with, because you won't accept their main source of revenue?
Seriously, can't you people think for a second of consequences?
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you just want everything for free, right? Google are supposed to eat air or something, and have nothing to work with, because you won't accept their main source of revenue?
Nonsense. I'm happy with Google making money off advertising as long as I'm not the one being advertised at. But if a browser doesn't let me avoid the adds, I won't use it.
More generally, I'm really quite grateful to all the consumers out there willing to spend vast quantities of money on things that don't make their lives noticeably better. The surplus from their spending benefits me through websites like Google, and in countless other ways. Also, since they spend so much, they have to work more, and other people working more is clearly of benefit to me. Without the American consumer my life would be much less pleasant.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:3, Insightful)
So you just want everything for free, right?
Why assume that? I might pay for a Google search at a rate I found acceptable, like 1p a search, if it meant I wasn't exposed to ads (and if the results were better too, but that's by the by). Having said that I personally don't find the Google ads intrusive, and I don't block them. But they'd better understand that I will never click on a Google ad because I prefer to research products and suppliers myself, and hopefully find a reputable opinion to guide me rather than whoever can buy the best keywords.
Is it against the T&Cs to use the site but vow never to click on an ad? If not, how can using ad-blocking software be wrong? I choose to ignore the messages regardless.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying you're cool with everyone subsidizing your access to google stuff by ignoring the ads. Really just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I mean what if everyone developed your mentality and decided "Well i'm ok with using Google products for free but no taking the advertising with it". I mean c'mon Google ads (so far) are the least intrusive ads I have really ever seen. I mean have you see the state of Yahoo email or even MSN's mail portal? It's one thing to swear off Google stuff if you aren't cool with the ads but there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to use gmail without the ads i'd suggest maybe paying for their google apps although I am not sure if they have ads or not. If it bothers you that much just pay another provider with straight POP/IMAP or run your own mail server.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, wish we were all smart like you.
I mean, I listened to an on the radio, contacted the company and saved my company about 60K in HR expenses - if I were as smart as you, maybe I would've skipped the ad.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Post mysteriously disappeared the first time)
Nonsense. I'm happy with Google making money off advertising as long as I'm not the one being advertised at. But if a browser doesn't let me avoid the adds, I won't use it.
We're talking about Ad-Block Plus here. Essentially, you want a browser that will let you strip out the revenue-generating portion of all of the websites that you visit.
You put it in happy terms, but there is something kind of dirty about that. It's like only visiting museums with a suggested donation, and then insulting the suckers who actually donate. Or in this case, you're not willing to have a tiny bar at the top of the websites that you visit, to fund the continued existence of the websites that you visit.
If you're not going to buy something, don't buy something. If you don't like advertising, spend time on portions of the internet that aren't funded by advertising. But don't just get all high-and-mighty about how advertising is for suckers, while posting to a site that wouldn't exist without it with a browser that wouldn't exist without it.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:5, Insightful)
Using AdBlock is as immoral as going to the bathroom during commercial breaks, thumbing through magazines in a bookstore without buying them, and not reading billboards as you drive by. Unless you have agreed to view ads as part of some subscription service then you don't have to look at them. I pay for my internet connection and I own my computer. I have every right to control what does and doesn't come down my connection and get displayed on my monitor.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:2, Insightful)
So you just want everything for free, right? Google are supposed to eat air or something, and have nothing to work with, because you won't accept their main source of revenue?
Seriously, can't you people think for a second of consequences?
There are CNN.com pages set to auto-refresh faster than my modem can download them and that is with adblock. Third party sites are a MAJOR source of drive-by infestations, scams, etc. Flash does not respect my browser's zero animations setting. What of cookies that do not expire (and store *their* data on *your* drive) and advertiser networks that profile your behavior? The people not thinking for a second of the conseqences think that if 1 add is worth $0.001 that 10 adds will be worth $.010. The reality is the more ("you tighten your grip...") crap you put up there, the less I can see even if I want to look. There is no contract, neither implied nor social and fuck-certainly not formal, that says I must look at the ads because your medium is "ad supported". Newspapers don't suggest this crap. They know if you are looking for a car, you'll be all over the auto section pages. Otherwise, the fuck if they care.
You know about the weak-ass protections in the CAN-SPAM act? The DMA wants the unsubscribe requests to expire in two years. There is no punishment too harsh for scum-sucking motherfucker advertisers.... as a whole, at least.
I would be HAPPY and I would LOVE IT if you website owners could develop an ad-block block (not let me load a page if running ad-block). Because this would increase the demand for websites not run by assholes. This won't be an arms race at all! I will surrender! I will never visit your motherfucking pages again.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you depend on the luck of listening to one radio ad to save 60k your doing something wrong.
OS market share and the often not thought about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copy Firefox source code? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I keep hearing this, and I'm not arguing with it or anything, but I've been able to embed Gecko and all its glory into a couple windows apps of mine now. I've yet to find a complete documented example for embeding webkit into an app on windows.
I'm certainly not saying they don't exist, its probably just that I'm searching for it the wrong way, but I'd really love to see someone point me at the 20-30 lines of code it should take to embed webkit into a simple window in Windows.
Taking a quick look at my apps, I use 45 lines of code to embed gecko into an app, so please someone point me at a webkit example like this as I'd be more than happy to shed some Gecko weight.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all: You are freeloading, which is kind of cheap. Secondly, advertising != mindless consumerism. Advertising is a (heavily biased, which can be useful) source of information that fulfills a useful function in many cases,
You know what the thing is about Google's ads? They are very, very smart - which is pretty much the only reason why they can make billions of dollars with tiny text ads. Sometimes I'm looking for something out of the ordinary that has to be bought at a store, not fashioned from the intestines of my domesticated animals. (I'm sure you hardly ever experience that predicament). Google's ads usually take me to a reputable place immediately.
Unless you absolutely always know exactly what you are looking for at any given time, you are sure to learn something by looking at their ads.
I have a paid Google Apps email account, but keep ads turned on because they often deliver interesting tidbits of information (mostly on competitors and other stuff that my work-mail is about) that I wouldn't actively have gone looking for.
And dude, sorry to break it to you, but you are a fucking consumer as well.
Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (Score:2, Insightful)
> It's like a guy that delivers donuts to your office and simply leaves a tip jar, saying you can pay as much as you think the donuts are worth. If you take a donut, like
> it, plan to take one again tomorrow, and DON'T leave some money, you're a flaming asshole.
No, it's like a guy who brings donuts that you don't want, and keeps leaving little pieces of paper advertising his donuts, and you say you're never going to buy donuts because you have some sort of intolerance with one of the ingredients, and he says 'well, i'll leave the leaflets anyway' and you say 'no, really, i'm never going to buy one' but he insists on leaving them.
Leaflet or not, I'm never going to buy a donut.