Google Releases Chrome V2.0 381
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.
AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it have AdBlock Plus?
As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome needs an adblock plus.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're feeling paranoid, and can read C, please feel free to peer-review the code.
Here, I'll make it easy for you. http://sourceforge.net/projects/ijbswa [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I never trust anyone who is a big enough tool to write comments on something without even looking into what it is.
You run privoxy on your own local machine. No packets are being inspected by anyone.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Interesting)
Chromium is opensource.
Fork your git branch ... ...
Rewrite AdBlock plus for Chromium
???
Profit !
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Funny)
Fork your git branch
Please watch your language.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Informative)
It's been done: SRWare Iron.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)
They specifically listed AdBlock as one of the things they wanted to support through their extension API, which is still in development.
Re:Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging b (Score:4, Insightful)
I have that problem as well, but then only on the machines where I've installed every add-on I could find. So something tells me it's more my fault than Mozilla's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Either you don't know how bug databases work or you're just using the numbers to push an agenda. The important idea to take home here is: The number of reported bugs is a really poor indicator of anything.
The above is the only thing needed to make your statement useless, but I can point some other problems with it as well: Mozilla has ~50 different products in their bugzilla, you searched them all (including things like websites). Also, the vas
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Interesting)
You do know they are slowly backing off and Mozilla is looking strangely at Google? [slashdot.org]
No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait forever (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait fore (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I switched to the Chrome beta almost full time.
It doesn't lock up on bad Flash sites, it just kills flash (good riddance), it doesn't fail to load JavaScript on Slashdot (Firefox), it doesn't sit on 1GB of my RAM for no apparent reason (Firefox) and it doesn't crash for no apparent reason (Safari).
Re: (Score:2)
It can run most Greasemonkey scripts.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Swilver wants to use NoScript to remove javascript from his web pages. 1998 was an era when javascript was only used for "stupid browser tricks", as opposed to today, when javascript is essential to the functionality of a large percentage of web resources. He's living in the past.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:5, Informative)
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]
AdBlock Plus - And normal UI! (Score:3, Interesting)
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:AdBlock Plus - And normal UI! (Score:5, Interesting)
On Windows, Chrome's window decorations are always in a horrible bubbly Fisher-Price style that somewhat mirrors the default XP/Vista themes. The application does not honor system-wide windowing theme settings. This is stupid. You've kinda come to expect media players to do this (it's still annoying, but it's become the accepted convention) but serious applications like a browser that I'm going to be looking at all day should not lock themselves out of the OS's visual theme system. I'm stuck with one app which seems like an alien on my system because all the colors and widgets are completely different to everything else. It's as bad as bloody Apple!
Another thing I suspect the GP is talking about is the menu. Oh, I mean the toolbar button. Or do I mean menu? Who knows. Take any normal application on Windows that has a menu - press ALT. Now you can navigate the menu option with the cursors or with menu shortcut keys. Google decided that I didn't need this ability and hacked out the well understood, standard concept menu and replaced it with a little popup off of two toolbar buttons. And for a cherry on top, put those icons at the opposite side of the window from where you'd go hunting for a missing menu anyway.
Ooo lessee... how about allowing the application's controls (in this case, the tab bar) to impinge upon the applications titlebar and moving the apps title from the left to the right. This is just more of the kind of utterly pointless "gloatware" interface decisions that often characterises Apple software on Windows. "Our scrap of software is the single most important thing you'll ever use on your computer so - obviously - it's important that it break established visual style and usage conventions to remind you how important is is!". Gloatware.
These seem like trivial things but interface conventions are of huge value to users who lack confidence in front of a computer. Once you've learned that there's always a Menu and it always has File, Edit, View and Help on it - you've got a huge head-start on getting to know any new bit of software.
There are other things that annoy me about Chrome like that stupid is-it-or-isn't-it-status-bar; curiously referring to its SSL preferences as "computer-wide" in the options page (it's going to change SSL behaviour across all apps and OS?); Bookmark interface; yadda yadda AdBlock, NoScript, yadda.
I feel better now XD
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing, the colors in the UI are much more pleasing than the default XP Luna theme. They're much more pastel, much softer. They don't distract from the content, unlike the large full-color icons Firefox uses. In Chrome, the icons are all a darker s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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, Interesting)
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Interesting)
When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it.
Your issue with Firefox probably is actually with Pango. IMHO, Pango renders text far more beautifully than any version of Windows does, but it IS a lot slower. You used to be able to disable Pango when building Firefox; I'm not sure whether that is still possible.
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Informative)
I am using the Linux version on a daily basis. It is usable, and the speed blows FF3 firmly out of the water, to the point that I don't want to go back to FF. Of course, it does crash every once in a while, and there are many rough edges.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the mac daily build page
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/sub-rel-mac/ [chromium.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, I've been following the PPA build too, and I have to say it's come a long way! I've been using it regularly.
It no longer crashes all the time, though still does so once in a while (but hell so does firefox). These are usually repeatable so I'm sure they'll be fixed in the not too distant future.
One thing I've noticed recently is that one of the first things I tried when first installing it was to check whether the Chrome Experiments [chromeexperiments.com] would work, and unsurprisingly it crashed immediately when I tried t
Re:Windows Only (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Insightful)
"By the masses"? You honestly think the masses use Adblock?
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Funny)
I've got adblock plus, but I dont' go to masses anymore. Too preachy. I like to limit the ability of other people to tell me what to do.
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Interesting)
Way ahead of you.
http://adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way ahead of you. http://adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]
I guess I'm ahead of everyone. ;-)
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Insightful)
Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses.
You only say that because it's how IE became so popular.~
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Really? On the high end maybe 1% of the internet population uses some type of adblocking software. Not to mention there are ways to block ads and still browse with Chrome, not as well as Adblock, but it gets the job done.
Personally I have no problem without adblocking software, if it means I don't have to run the bloated piece of shit that is Firefox (sorry guys, just being honest).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd conjecture most users don't even know about addins, and quite a few in addition would consider them as glue-and-bandaids over a browser shortcoming; not that as an inherently virtuous platform "feature."
Most people will choose Chrome for performance and the Google name that they trust, if they change their browser at all.
Re:No plug in support (Score:5, Interesting)
If the masses were blocking ads, what would happen?
1) The web would become a marvelous place without any ad anywhere.
2) Tons of web site would just close
3) Tons of web site would require you to pay per view
4) New, more intrusive, difficult to block, kind of ads would go mainstream. (similar to spam filters vs spammers).
To tell the truth, 1) would only happen in a fairy tale.
Re:No plug in support (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't click on ads, ever. (Not even AdSense ads.)
How does my Adblock/NoScript usage hurt the websites that I vist?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like how you write
its like modern
Poetry, sweet
broken
And slightly insulting
This whole adblocking movement is just by a bunch of whiny "kids".
You all expect free things, but you block the very tiny things that let them be free.
Totally a childish mentality.
No. I'm sick of ads, even tasteful ones. How you keep your website up is your problem, not mine. I don't have to go to it, there is a replacement out there, probably even a better site that I haven't found yet. If you charge me for your page, I'd be happy to pay IF (and only if) you make it worth my time and money. If it isn't worth paying for, no one will, and you will either be forced to h
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses.
...says the guy who has an ad in his signature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing, I was setting up my fathers computer, and threw ad-block on Firefox. He never noticed.
To me this says that ads aren't as powerful as people think they are. I don't watch much TV, nor browse the web without adblock+, and when I actually do turn on network TV, or use a friends computer (that I didn't set up) I'm shocked. I don't think thats because there is too many ads, but because I haven't been exposed to them for 8 years. To other people, their normal background noise that they subconscio
I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Provokes an Interesting Question (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean Chrome, not Google. Sorry.
Re:Provokes an Interesting Question (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Chrome is not an open source project. Chromium is an open source project, and yes, you're free to fork that, as per the terms of the licenses [google.com].
Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (Score:5, Informative)
But I can't live with the invasion of privacy [wikipedia.org]. Sorry :(
So why not get Iron [srware.net]?
Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia, that string is the one thing you can't switch off. Is their information incorrect?
Still waiting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Development builds are right there for the downloading.
Re: (Score:3)
You know that it takes time to develop software, right? It doesn't just spring into existence by itself?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still waiting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lack of development? There is development happening for OS X and Linux. It's just not ready for end-users yet.
Because development isn't simply a matter of money. It takes time to develop software, and organisational/human/communication factors impose an upper limit on how fast development can move. Mozilla have a codebase where 15 years have been spent in development. No amount of money can compensate for that head-start. Mozilla aren't developing any faster than Google, they are further ahead because they've been doing it longer.
The original releases of Netscape were far, far simpler products. I could write "Hello, World" in 30 seconds that would run on more platforms than Chrome - does that make me better than Google? No, because the task of writing a modern web browser is substantially greater than writing "Hello, World" - and substantially greater than writing an early 90s web browser.
Yes, because they had less to do. If your codebase is a fraction of the size and has only a handful of features, of course it's easier to port it to other systems. By the way, have you tried running those early Netscape versions on Linux and OS X?
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla does it in a stupid way (IMHO) by using a non-native widget set and all this XUL nonsense. Google tries to do it the right way, by developing a specific version for each platform. It takes a bit of time.
Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.
That would make sense if they were selling it, but it's a product they are giving away so other than sheer laziness there is no reason they shouldn't have been doing cross-platform work from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, development builds are right there for the downloading.
Re: (Score:2)
i would try chrome with wine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here we go again (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
I'm here to use browsers and wrap tin-foil ass and I'm all out of tin-foil.
js rendering is not the bottleneck (Score:4, Interesting)
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.]
I still prefer Chrome. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Chrome without Privacy Issues (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:Chrome without Privacy Issues (Score:4, Funny)
$ aptitude search chromium
p chromium - fast paced, arcade-style, scrolling space shooter
Now that's the browser for me!
Does it have "No-Adblock"-Block? (Score:5, Funny)
FYI (Score:3, Informative)
Passes Acid3 (Score:4, Interesting)
FAQ (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but this is okay for some of us as the awesomeness of Chrome and the awesomeness of Linux can be be brought into harmonic awesomeness with the Awesome Window Manager [naquadah.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do certain companies insist on changing making their applications look inconsistent with the rest of the operating system?
I don't know about OS X, but on Windows, from Vista on, there isn't really anything to be consistent with to speak of. Office 2007 uses window chrome for its toolbars (which isn't that far from Chrome using it for tab bar), and did you see the screenshots of Expression Blend [amirkhella.com] or VS2010 beta [msdn.com] (no, it's not a custom color scheme - they really look like that by default)? Heck, what about IE7+ and Windows Explorer extending the transparency effect (which normally marks the window chrome) to their toolbars / addre