Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Google Software

Google Chrome 28 Is Out: Rich Notifications For Apps, Extensions 90

Posted by Soulskill
from the extending-its-lead-on-firefox's-version-number dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome version 28 for Windows and Mac. The new version features a notification center, although it's only available on Windows (in addition to Chrome OS of course). You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome. This is also the first release of Chrome that ships with Blink instead of WebKit. You can check the Blink ID yourself tag by navigating to chrome://version/."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome 28 Is Out: Rich Notifications For Apps, Extensions

Comments Filter:
  • and a bunch of other stuff. They were integrating it into Chrome.
    • by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @08:20PM (#44233187)

      I wish they would stop making it so easy to integrate stuff into chrome.

      I was testing software packages for work and I spent 30 minutes removing self installing tool bars from chrome. I would remove one extension but by the time I got to remove the second one it would install the first one again.

      I don't want 4 extension 3, toolbars, 2 home page settings, each with the ability to install software by themselves.

    • What is "notifications?" There is no explanation for such a vague term.

      • Notifications is a new API being added to the HTML5 spec, since every operating system seems to use a global notification system now.
        • by kav2k (1545689)

          Wrong. Since I follow the situation closely, let me explain.

          The HTML5 Web Notifications API [w3.org] is in Chrome since forever under webKitNotifications [chrome.com].

          The first draft spec of Notifications API included both icon-and-text simplistic notifications, and HTML notifications which were in fact just tiny windows that popped up.
          Chrome implemented both, extension authors happily started using it.

          Next, W3C drops HTML notifications from the draft. Chrome then drops it from the web context, but keeps it for extensions: they

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'd like to try it. Is there a build somewhere of Chrome that doesn't talk to Google?

    • by DavidRawling (864446) <hulk_@NOSpAM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @07:42PM (#44232881)

      Oh sure, that'll be the same build that finally figures out that some organisations have web servers with names that don't end in .com.

      It's woefully consistent - type a server name that is a "recognised external" URL (so something ending in .com, .co.uk, .fr, etc) and it'll go straight to the site. Type an internal server name (either a plain server name or an internal DNS name) and it will insist on searching Google, because quite obviously the user DIDN'T want localsite or site.network.internal after all. No if you want an internal server, you'll need to get the users to type in the full URL including protocol (because then the same keystrokes that were obviously wrong are suddenly obviously right).

      Couple that with the new "requirement" for Chrome if you want to download the Google Talk [wait no it's Hangouts now] on the desktop (they can pry the desktop Talk client from my cold dead fingers) and the continual forcing of Google+ to view an image in a chat, it's clear Google has already turned into Microsoft V2 and is working on digging in deeper. (Hangouts? Seriously? No, it's not a "hangout" when I send an IM to my son to put the damn garbage out!)

      • by chill (34294) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @08:17PM (#44233159) Journal

        Oh man do hangouts suck. With Talk on my phone I could tell if people were online or not. Hangouts doesn't indicate (on Android).

        They also take 5-10 seconds to activate. Like the dam thing isn't * phoning * home, it is composing a letter long hand.

        • Xabber [xabber.com] is your friend. Honestly.

          Also, if you use an XMPP client to google's server, non-google XMPP users can still see you online.

      • by swillden (191260)

        It's woefully consistent - type a server name that is a "recognised external" URL (so something ending in .com, .co.uk, .fr, etc) and it'll go straight to the site. Type an internal server name (either a plain server name or an internal DNS name) and it will insist on searching Google, because quite obviously the user DIDN'T want localsite or site.network.internal after all.

        When you type the hostname you should see a box pop down below the location bar that has two lines with what you've typed. One has a "page" icon and one has a magnifying glass. The former will try to use the text as a URL, the later will search for it using your default search engine. If you hit enter, whichever one of those lines is on top will be the action taken. Chrome tries to guess which one you most likely want using some heuristics, which in the case of abbreviated internal names general get the wro

        • Too complicated for a company who's success is based on reading people's minds.

          • by swillden (191260)

            Too complicated for a company who's success is based on reading people's minds.

            It's only complicated for the power users. For most people -- who don't type hostnames and rely on DNS automatic domain suffixing to turn them into the correct URL -- the heuristics do an excellent job of doing the right thing... and when they get it wrong the generally fail on the side of searching, which then lets the search engine pick up the slack, because people usually find that the top result is the URL they were trying to type.

            It think it works really well for the common case, and reasonably well

      • by t0y (700664)
        You'll be happy to know that google talk doesn't work on windows 8.1.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Add a forward slash to the end of anything in the URL bar to force it to be interpreted as a hostname.
      • Well, "internal" isn't a valid TLD, why would a browser guess that you have a local TLD named like that?
        Omibar for firefox exhibits the exact same behaviour. Type something without a valid TLD into the search/address bar, and it assumes it's not a URL. Quite predictable.

    • by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @07:55PM (#44232991)

      I don't think there is anything done on the web that Google isn't aware of these days so you may as well just make it easier for them.

    • Why not just force load it in incognito mode? And I'd rather Chrome talk to Google than IE talking to MS.
    • You mean, Chromium [wikipedia.org]?
      Yeah, it in almost every's OS repositories (save for windows; but you can just download it from somewhere).

  • by fermion (181285)
    You can check the Blink ID yourself tag by navigating to chrome://version/."

    I desperately was sorry when the blink tag lost prominence. I hope it once again gets it's due respect. I also look forward to seeing the richer data sent to google from my machine due to facilitate the richer notification center.

    • by icebike (68054)

      I desperately was sorry when the blink tag lost prominence. I hope it once again gets it's due respect.

      Ok, I see said blink id, but even google search finds no ready answer to what the hell it is/means?

      Help me out here...

  • Rich? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @07:25PM (#44232725) Journal

    Okay, but how do those of us in the middle class get notifications?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You don't. It's all just a facade. The upper class will amass more and more notifications over their lifetime, and when they die, their subclasses will inherit them.

  • Every other browser has prefixless CSS transforms now.

  • So some apps can bribe their way to getting notified first, some kind of premium notification system that makes Google rich then?

  • They'd be well served to either adopt point releases (unless they already to, in which case, DAMN!) or use month/year as the version.
  • by dsinc (319470) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @09:33PM (#44233677) Journal
    Chrome 29 ignores the --disable-new-menu-style switch. Another strange choice made by the devs (remember the useless outcry when they cancelled the option to hide the download shelf?)...
    • I now have to scroll to see all my bookmarks, thanks to the idiotic double-spacing.

      Much as I otherwise like Chrome, it's back to Firefox for me. It's a bad decision to sacrifice ergonomics for ... well, whatever it was that motivated this dumb decision.

      • by gnurfed (1051140) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @10:28PM (#44233977)
        Google says [google.com] they did the extra padding to create a "unified experience" for all. Meaning us normal users get to suffer because we somehow need to have the same interface as people using tablets. Like you, I'm going back to Firefox as my primary browser, or Waterfox to be exact.
        • by pantaril (1624521)

          I also recently switched back from google-chrome to firefox. In my case, there were two reasons:
          - google-chrome memory consumption was enormous. It also grow over time and with the number of opened tabs so i had to restart my browser periodicaly otherwise it slowed to crawl before long.
          - google-chrome is horrible at solving user-reported bugs. Developers usualy don't even ackowledge them or comment on them. For example this bug [google.com] is 2 years old, affect great number of users, is easy to fix but it's still unco

          • There are even older bugs. Like the runaway GDI usage.

            But the unified UI experience tops the telemetry deduced decision making list of moronic google employees.

          • Many here on slashdot will still bash Firefox for being bloated while typing the comment in Chrome.

        • Wow I thought I heard this before ... like when 9-11 timeframe a decade ago that another popular browser had unique CSS features that only it had to provide a better experience over that old obsolete Netscape engine.

          The same developers who cry foul are busy making sure their mobile sites only work with -webkit and break with everything else but IE 6 sucks because it is sooo proprietary.

    • I don't get why this isn't just a goddamn option. I really hate the tablet spacing crap.

  • by Zamphatta (1760346) on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @10:07PM (#44233889) Homepage
    Sure v28 is built on Blink? I just put chrome://version/ in my address bar, and it shows my UA string as -- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36
    • by NetRanger (5584)

      Same here on 28.0.1500.71 (Official Build 209842) beta.

      And it's STILL 32-bit. Really Google?!?

    • Sure v28 is built on Blink? I just put chrome://version/ in my address bar, and it shows my UA string as -- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36

      Did you notice there's also Mozilla and Safari mentioned there ?

    • Sure v28 is built on Blink? I just put chrome://version/ in my address bar, and it shows my UA string as -- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36

      What the hell? Mozilla, AppleWebKit, KHTML, Gecko, Chrome, Safari... all in the same user agent string. That is some garbage. :)

      • by Kalriath (849904)

        No it's not.

        Mozilla - this is the start of every UA string. Even Internet Explorer's.
        AppleWebKit - this is the rendering engine previously used, likely still mentioned for compatibility.
        KHTML - WebKit is a fork of KHTML, so this indicates that anything that works for Konqueror will probably work for WebKit.
        Gecko - KHTML was designed to render similarly to Gecko, this basically just tells servers "if you haven't got anything for me, anything for Gecko is OK".
        Chrome - this is the browser.
        Safari - this is the

  • You just know that's what it is for.

    Can you turn off the channel to Google?

  • Not 100% sure this is WebKit-free. On MacOSX there's still a reference to webkit in the UserAgent string as: "AppleWebKit" anyway.

  • by Skinny Rav (181822) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @02:45AM (#44235175)

    Google Chrome shapes into a really nice OS, it just lacks a decent browser.

  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @06:24AM (#44236033) Homepage

    Yeah, I think I'm going to switch to Firefox again. The Doctor warned us about this rendering engine in pretty strong words.

  • Are we making fun of Chrome for having so many releases, or is that still just Firefox? I haven't kept up with it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    C'mon! I just upgraded to Chrome 23!! Fuck this shit. I'm waiting another month for version 37!!!

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...