Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Software The Internet IT

Google Releases Chrome V2.0 381

Posted by timothy
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Releases Chrome V2.0

Comments Filter:
  • AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrMista_B (891430) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:31PM (#28046077)

    Does it have AdBlock Plus?

    As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.

    • Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)

      by Laxori666 (748529) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:39PM (#28046175) Homepage
      just get privoxy. works with anything! http://www.privoxy.org/ [privoxy.org] .
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Except that Privoxy has occasionally murdered my girlfriend's ability to visit some sites on no basis at all. Multiple 403 errors and general page load failures. It's a nice concept, but it really does have its problems since it runs between the network connection and whatever is using it.

    • Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EggyToast (858951) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:43PM (#28046241) Homepage
      Agreed, although this is one reason why Firefox will likely still have a life -- it's unaffiliated with a company that makes money through advertising. Why would Google support a browser add-on that allows you to block their main revenue source?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2009 @06:16PM (#28046657)

      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.

    • by kindbud (90044)

      It can run most Greasemonkey scripts.

    • Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swilver (617741) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @07:05PM (#28047255)

      Not ditching it before it also has NoScript. I seriously couldn't care less about JavaScript performance, I donot want applications in my browser.

    • Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)

      by Photo_Nut (676334) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @09:05PM (#28048255)

      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]

    • Chrome is a killer browser. Because it is _very_ fast and renders correctly most of the time.

      The problem is that they insist on ALSO breaking a lot of UI conventions and inventing their own. That's nice, but one should have the choice to use a "normal" UI. Firefox with the Chrome engine, or Chrome enginge with Firefox UI would be a killer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sootman (158191)

      Gah. People who ask "does it work with AdBlock?" in every single thread about any browser other than Firefox (and asking rhetorically, rather than doing two seconds of research and posting an honest "Hey, I checked, and it doesn't work with AdBlock") are getting to be just like area men who constantly mention that they don't own televisions. [theonion.com]

      Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers... According to Melinda Elkins, a coworker of

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by temcat (873475)

      I used Firefox 3 (with AdBlock Plus) but recently switched to Chrome 2.0 when it still was in beta. And then I realized that ads don't bother me anymore, now that my browser is SO fast. I've been running Chrome 2.0 for a couple of weeks - not a single hiccup since!

  • Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imamac (1083405) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:32PM (#28046091)

    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)

      by Goaway (82658) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:38PM (#28046165) Homepage

      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?

      • Re:Windows Only (Score:4, Interesting)

        by zuperduperman (1206922) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @07:06PM (#28047259)

        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.

      • Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2009 @07:12PM (#28047319)

        isn't that what open source advocates tell you to do every time you complain about an open source app?

        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.

    • by cptnapalm (120276)

      I thought that Google used a customized Ubuntu on a hell of a lot of their desktop systems. If that is still the case, it would be odd that they would exclude a lot of their own employees using Google's own browser while at work at Google.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by socsoc (1116769)

        All the webcasts I have participated in have them using Google products pretty much exclusively, with what appears to be their personal desktops. Some could be using a customized Ubuntu, but many of the outward facing employees know to pimp Google properties, even if they aren't overt about it.

        I just don't understand why they use WebEx instead of some Google version

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by A12m0v (1315511)

      There are builds of chromium for GNU/Linux and Mac.

      I tried the Mac build and it works, but still rough around the edges.

    • Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Informative)

      by ogrisel (1168023) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:43PM (#28046233)
      An experimental (daily snapshot) version for ubuntu is available here: https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa [launchpad.net]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by drizek (1481461)

        This is the mac daily build page

        http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/sub-rel-mac/ [chromium.org]

    • Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blind biker (1066130) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @06:03PM (#28046501) Journal

      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.

    • Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rikkitikki (91982) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @06:30PM (#28046819)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

        Just develop your applications using a Qt/C++/gcc framework.

        Fast, native code, easy, powerful, free (LGPL) and cross-platform.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit) [wikipedia.org]

        http://www.qtsoftware.com/products/developer-tools [qtsoftware.com]

        VLC, Scribus and VirtualBox are good examples of cross-platform applications developed using Qt and Qt creator:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualBox [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_Media_Player [wikipedia.org]

        If that doesn't appeal, then use Lazarus

        http://en.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Waccoon (1186667)

        Windows is deliberately incompatable with anything else at the source code level. Windows makes it as difficult as possible to be cross-platform.

        While I sympathize, I must ask at what point the world turned into only two major OSes: Windows and UN*X.

        I remember back in the 80's when there were a dozen OSes that were all radically different, and people just sucked it up and wrote software for each platform. Each OS (and the hardware) really stood out and had its own special advantages and quirks. Those were the days of real competition and innovation. These days, if it's not UNIX-ish, it's not "standards compliant" or some crap like that. Nobody i

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by grahamd0 (1129971)

      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?

      If you're on Mac, try Safari 4. They both use Webkit, it's pretty nice, fast, and is very similar to Chrome in the terms of the look and UI.

      Personally, I feel naked without Firebug.

  • No plug in support (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NitroWolf (72977) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:33PM (#28046099)

    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.

  • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:33PM (#28046103) Homepage
    But I can't live with the invasion of privacy [wikipedia.org]. Sorry :(
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by hcs_$reboot (1536101)
      Chrome is a trap! This is why there is no version for Linux...
    • Big mistake.
      The early adopters are, by definition, going to be geeks who will be most pissed off, and vocal about this tracking.

      No thonx google.

    • 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?

    • by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Thursday May 21, 2009 @06:06PM (#28046547) Homepage Journal

      But I can't live with the invasion of privacy [wikipedia.org]. Sorry :(

      So why not get Iron [srware.net]?

    • by AMSmith42 (60300) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @06:06PM (#28046555)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I'm not sure I buy into "usage tracking is an invasion of privacy" mantra.

        Good for you.

        It seems to me this is a modern day "taking your photograph will steal your soul" sort of superstition.

        Actually it's more like I don't want them collecting data on me that they sell later for money without my express permission.

        Is the internet not a public place? I'm not sure what kind of privacy people expect while using it.

        So then you would be perfectly fine with your bank, for example, having you do transactions over unencrypted connections? I mean the internet is a public place, right?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AMSmith42 (60300)

          Actually it's more like I don't want them collecting data on me that they sell later for money without my express permission.

          Fair enough. Do you avoid security cameras in stores as well?

          So then you would be perfectly fine with your bank, for example, having you do transactions over unencrypted connections? I mean the internet is a public place, right?

          If my bank required me to do that, then no, I would not be fine with it. I don't nail my deposits to the side of their building either. And I don't expect any sort of implied privacy when surfing the internet. If I want to do anything private, I'll keep as many hands and eyes off it as possible.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Actual, the send an encrypted string that you can turn off, so we don't really know what they are sending. I suspect marketing and ad info they sell.
        Info that's useless if they don't know anything about the user.

  • Still waiting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by viyh (620825) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:34PM (#28046111) Homepage
    I'd really love to try this hyped up browser but I don't seem to have a Windows machine at my disposal. Throw us (linux/Mac people) a fricken bone, Google.
    • by Goaway (82658)

      Development builds are right there for the downloading.

  • but google's screwed up method of not even letting Linux users have a download url for the windows version
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by viyh (620825)
      If you really wanted to do this, you could find it. But, it's really slow under wine anyway.
  • by Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:45PM (#28046267)

    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

    • Missing Option. But I'm already using it you insensitive clod!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mqduck (232646)

      I'm pretty sure you're being modded Insightful because you list three points that are very good, no matter how sarcastically you state them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by qtzlctl (1538903)

      I'm here to use browsers and wrap tin-foil ass and I'm all out of tin-foil.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:49PM (#28046303)

    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.]

  • by lwsimon (724555) <lyndsy@lyndsysimon.com> on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:52PM (#28046357) Homepage Journal

    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)

  • by basementman (1475159) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @05:58PM (#28046441) Homepage

    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]

  • by IvyMike (178408) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @06:42PM (#28046987)
    You know, the plugin that blocks the endless comments from people asking "does it have Adblock?"
  • FYI (Score:3, Informative)

    by SBrach (1073190) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @07:04PM (#28047237)
    2.0 works by default on Win 7 x64 RC1. No need for the "--in-process-plugins"
  • Passes Acid3 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WebManWalking (1225366) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @07:48PM (#28047675)
    Just got 2.0 and went straight to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]: Passed 100/100.
  • FAQ (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Thursday May 21, 2009 @11:17PM (#28049123)
    Q. Will chrome ever work in OS/X / Linux / *BSD like real browsers tend to do?

    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...

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...