Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Android Chrome

Google Updates Maps, Makes First Stable Chrome Release Using WebKit Fork 62

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the ok-maps-what dept.
Two bits of Google news from today/yesterday. This morning, Google started rolling out a major update to mobile Maps. They've created a new tablet interface, improved integration with local places, integrated the Zagat guide, and enhanced navigation to automatically route you around traffic incidents. As usual lately, Google also removed a few features: Latitude and Check-ins. If you used those you'll have to use the Google+ application now. They also made a strange change to offline maps: instead of a menu option, you now access the area you want to make available offline and search for "OK Maps." On the Chrome front, Google released Chrome 28 yesterday, the first release featuring the WebKit fork Blink. The under-the-hood changes look promising, quoting the H: "The developers say that the increased speed is also thanks to the new threaded HTML parser, which frees up the JavaScript thread, allowing DOM content to be displayed faster. The HTML parser also takes fewer breaks, which is said to result in time savings of up to 40 per cent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Updates Maps, Makes First Stable Chrome Release Using WebKit Fork

Comments Filter:
  • by Infiniti2000 (1720222) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @12:21PM (#44239907)
    Hello Google Maps, good bye Apple Maps. Oh wait, why can't I uninstall Apple Maps or change it from being the default?
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      LOL, on the bright side, some of us with older i-devices only have access to Google Maps because they stopped giving us updates before they changed to Apple Maps.

      I'll trade you my now unsupported first-gen iPad for your phone. ;-)

  • by H0p313ss (811249) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @12:28PM (#44240001)

    > The HTML parser also takes fewer breaks

    I'm sure there's a better technical explanation for this, but I laughed at the thought of the HTML parser on a coffee break.

  • And yet, the slowest part of Chrome is STILL the web cache, which was borrowed from Firefox years ago... "Waiting for cache..." is the most common thing I see my browser doing.

    • Re:And yet... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Derek Pomery (2028) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @01:01PM (#44240591)

      Your mention of caching reminded me of this:
      http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=113754.0 [pclinuxos.com]

      "In a majority of web browsers, the size of the browser history and document cache is capped in one way or another: for example, if you have not visited facebook.com for a couple of weeks, any record of this will eventually disappear down the memory hole.

      This is not the case for Chrome: the browser keeps all the cached information indefinitely; perhaps this is driven by some hypothetical assumptions about browsing performance, and perhaps it simply is driven by the desire to collect more information to provide you with more relevant ads. Whatever the reason, the outcome is simple: over time, cache lookups get progressively more expensive; some of this is unavoidable, and some may be made worse by a faulty hash map implementation in infinite_cache.cc."

      That sounds Chrome specific to me.

      Certainly I haven't noticed any cache oddities in Firefox, which I tend to leave running for weeks at a time.

    • by s7uar7 (746699)
      Yes, every so often Chrome gets itself in a mess and just sits there with 'waiting for cache' while the disk chugs away. I can only think that everyone working on Chrome has a machine with a super-fast SSD and don't notice any problems themselves.
  • I don't understand why I'm not seeing the same slew of posts deriding Chrome's version numbering scheme that I see whenever there is a Firefox article.
    • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @01:05PM (#44240685) Homepage
      Google fanboys populate this place. Or as they're known elsewhere, NSA agents.
      • Yes, I harbor resentment, mark as foe, and down-mod anyone talking negative about Google. Beware. There are many like me.

    • I don't understand why I'm not seeing the same slew of posts deriding Chrome's version numbering scheme that I see whenever there is a Firefox article.

      Because Chrome started with the inflated numbering scheme and stuck with it. Firefox had a sane and useful numbering scheme and abandoned it.

      • It seems like that would be something that would have been complained about when it first happened and not every time that a story comes up. Otherwise, people would still be complaining about Google's decision to use such a scheme in the first place. In addition, the criticism to which I'm referring always takes the place of a joke about high high the numbering is going to get in the near future. That applies to Chrome as well as to Firefox.
    • Google started out with crazy inflated version numbering, whereas Firefox used to have a sane system but then decided to abandon it.

      Speaking of which...isn't Firefox almost caught up now? 22 vs. 28 I believe?

      • by Tumbleweed (3706)

        Google started out with crazy inflated version numbering, whereas Firefox used to have a sane system but then decided to abandon it.

        Speaking of which...isn't Firefox almost caught up now? 22 vs. 28 I believe?

        It won't ever catch up. They're both on a 6-week release schedule.

    • by Dracos (107777)

      Because Chrome is not trying to copy everything Firefox does at every opportunity.

    • by Sancho (17056)

      Chrome has always maintained a stable extension API, and have largely stuck with it (I'm not aware of any deviations, but I don't discount the possibility that they've existed.) Also, because they never exposed a version number in a prominent way, we haven't had web developers targeting versions of Chrome.

      Firefox maintained a stable extension API, but then they also hosted third-party extensions which used unstable interfaces. By hosting them, they gave legitimacy to the unstable interfaces. With every F

    • Have you ever noticed WHEN chrome[ium] updates? Nope.
      Firefox show you this "checking addon compatibility" for a minute after every update. Some addons used to break (not anymore though). Those negative points are what made the rapid-release so awful.

  • by Entropius (188861) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @01:18PM (#44240887)

    If it routes around traffic incidents, then it'll be useless in Washington DC.

    I don't want my phone to die with an error to the effect of "Unable to find path from Washington to Baltimore avoiding traffic incident WASHINGTON_BELTWAY_CLUSTERFUCK".

    Now if it would automatically warn of known speed traps...

    • by Skater (41976)
      I'm hoping their recent acquisition of Waze will make them stronger in this case. I have Waze and plan to use it on a long road trip tomorrow where I'm not as worried about traffic, but for traffic purposes around DC, it's just not as good as Google Maps as far as I can tell (it seems to need a bunch of people using it in an area, and it just doesn't have that installed base yet). Combining the best of the two should produce a pretty useful map, I think - as long as the Waze-style constant tracking is opt
  • "OK Maps" just brings up a map of Oklahoma. What use is that?

    Oh what a beautiful morning...
  • My Maps Gone! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 8Complex (10701) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @02:07PM (#44241599)

    They also removed the "My Maps" feature where you can pull up maps you've saved under your account within the desktop interface. Sad day for me, I use this for trip-planning all the time.

  • Google released Chrome 28 yesterday

    I updated to Chormium 28 on 19 June 2013. Why is Google Chrome getting released one month after Chromium?

"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler

Working...