Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome Google Software The Internet Upgrades Technology

Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10 169

Posted by CmdrTaco from the one-more-than-nine dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Google has released version 10 of the Chrome Browser. The update brings hundreds of bug fixes as well as many features that have been available on the Chrome beta and dev channels to users interested in using Chrome's latest builds. Chrome 10 also addresses 23 security vulnerabilities in the WebKit-based browser (easily more than Google has ever fixed before): 15 rated as High, three rated as Medium, and five rated as Low."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10 More

Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10

Comments Filter:

  • Normally I'd throw out a snarky joke like, "You mean the title should've been Google Releases Stable version of Chrome" but as a browser, Chrome's been pretty stable. Flash still makes it fall over from time to time, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

    • Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <(megazzt) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @06:06PM (#35424032) Homepage
      Flash is sandboxed in the most recent version, which should lead to better protection against exploits against Flash. And for a while now Flash should only crash itself if it crashes; not the whole browser.

      • Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PickyH3D ( 680158 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @06:13PM (#35424106)

        Now, I hope the next one on their list to add Sandboxing support to is Java. Until then, Java will remain disabled in Chrome.

      • But does it still hard lock/freeze the whole PC when running a 'Fullscreen Windowed' (no titlebar) 3D game if I open Chrome? I somehow doubt it's going to only freeze up one tab. ;)

        (For the record, Chrome is the only browser that does this, Minefield/Firefox and IE do not.)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Achoi77 ( 669484 )
          What game may I ask? I fire up all Chrome all the time on my second monitor when I'm playing some WoW to look up misc wow-related things (wow gem finder, wowhead, ej, etc). Never had it crash.

          • I just noticed it in Rift recently, so maybe it's just a conflict between some call they make and Chrome...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by blair1q ( 305137 )

        Why is it when I think of Flash being sandboxed I expect an actual box with actual sand has to be involved to get it to run...

      • If flash would just crash then sandboxing would at least solve that. But instead it happily gobbles your CPU with runaway rendering crap. The only limit on it now is it is single threaded. Not looking forward to multi-cpu flash.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It solves that too to some extent.

          This is on a 1050Mhz Athlon XP, so not exactly a modern machine - when the browser starts to lag and flash is the suspect, just hit shift+esc and kill the Flash plugin (should be second to bottom on the list, assuming you're using the official GPU drivers. If not, it'll be the bottom entry). You get a yellow bar appear at the top of any tabs that flash was running in, but the rest of the content is unaffected and none of the tabs crash. Restarting flash for a specific tab i

        • Architecturally, pretty much everything that one would need is in place, if the underlying OS supports it....

          At least on Windows platforms, the Flash plugin process shows up as "Chrome.exe", which is annoying; but you can get the real PID from Chrome's internal task manager and identify the process that way. Since it is a distinct process, it can be assigned a priority level of its own, distinct from that of Chrome. Re-nicing the process would presumably have the same effect on *nix systems, though I've
      • And perhaps more interestingly, "native client" is supported, which enables you to run c/c++ apps inside Chrome, sandboxed.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          No, it allows you to run 'restricted' native libraries using exposed APIs, (re)compiled for NaCl, which are then sandboxed.

      • I love Chrome, but the whole Flash Crash bug has me pulling my hair out. I spend an hour a day at work trying to diagnose how to fix the Flash Crash bug. Seriously hope that Adobe and Google can find a fix for this bug, and soon. It's annoying to go stumbling and find that 2/5 stumbles cause flash to break. Maybe I should just hold my breath until flash is a thing of the past.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      Software is almost never stable.

      BIBO-stable, yes. For beta-tested values of BI.

    • When I want stability, I use Firefox. Flash also works much better with that browser even though flash always is a hassle on a 64bit os. Chrome on the other hand, smokes Firefix out of the water when it comes to raw speed.
  • Can I finally use RAM for the browser's cache like Firefox to avoid frequent hits on my SSD?

    • There's a "workaround"? (I have not tried this, but I just searched for it...)

      http://www.wagnerdanda.me/2010/08/how-to-fix-google-chrome-problems-with-ssd-move-cache-to-ramdisk/ [wagnerdanda.me]

      Of course, if you have a spinning disk, that would work as well.

    • Can I finally use RAM for the browser's cache like Firefox to avoid frequent hits on my SSD?

      Is a userspace program really a good place for such a feature? It seems kludgey to have individual programs handling their own storing-a-bunch-of-files-in-RAM tasks in their own memory spaces and according to their own fashion, rather than just having a tmpfs(or other OS equivalent) to which the user can configure any program that needs filesystem-like RAM storage to point, without any per-program special features being involved...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zoxed ( 676559 )

      If you are on Linux then the most recently used files should be buffered in RAM anyway (maybe newer Windows are better at this now.). (Of course you can help your kernel by closing unused apps to free up RAM to be used for file buffering.)

  • But does the back button work properly? It has been broken for ages on certain sites...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 )

      But does the back button work properly? It has been broken for ages on certain sites...

      out on the net today
      i saw a dead head sticker on a cadillac
      a voice inside my head said don't look back
      you can never look back

    • And releasing the middle mouse button over a link after scrolling. That annoyed the bejeezus out of me and was the reason I switched back to Firefox. It basically made ad- and link-ridden sites unscrollable with the middle mouse button.

  • Since I'm already running Chrome 10.0.648.127, I'd have to think this is old news.
    • Me too and it still says "beta"
    • Which channel are you running? My installed version using the stable channel is getting updated as we speak, while my install on the dev channel (different computer) has indeed been running version 10 for some time.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't know; it seems to be news to me that Google doesn't know how to patch. To get these critical security fixes you have to go from a 9.x version to a 10.x version. Do you know how much Apple, Microsoft, or Mozilla would be pilloried if they made you jump to a new version to get security patches? This whole, "don't fix it, just release a newer full version - no patches" is pretty lame.

      • Google frequently release security patches for their stable and beta channels.

        It's just that this time around, it's time for a more major release. And Google doesn't do the "support old versions" thing.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by blair1q ( 305137 )

        For what reason would you not want to go from a 9.x to a 10.x?

        Do you have webpages that aren't forward-compatible? Are they locked into a system that can't be updated itself?

        That's a you problem. Not a them problem.

    • Since I'm at 11.0.686.3, I'm even more blasé about this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ifrag ( 984323 )

        That old version? I'm at 11.0.689.0 (76563) so I'm even MORE blasé about this.

        I was a little paranoid about running "unstable" builds for a while but I haven't really seen any problems with it.

  • Now my Beta version of Chrome no longer feels very Beta-like :(
  • Version 10! Oh man, and here I am feeling like a chump with Firefox 4. I'm waaaay behind on my Internet power level compared to Chrome. I gotta switch before I completely miss out on the Internet awesomeness provided by the much newer Chrome 10! It's 6 additional levels of awesomeness people!

    // For those who lack the ability to detect sarcasm - mod me down and I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.

  • Did webgl make a comeback? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I was all keen on trying it out, but a build in January just crashed horribly, and a few weeks later it seemed to be disabled all together. I have high hopes for webgl, hopefully the browsers will all push it out the door this year.

  • As long as they stick with that UI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @06:16PM (#35424118) Journal

    Then I'll stick with Firefox, it might get a bit bloated but I have my fingers crossed as hardware improves and they end up making the multithreaded code, it'll at least remain the speed it is now, while retaining good functionality for me.

    Yes, I know they are copying the _ridiculous_ tabs on the top UI from chrome, it can be disabled in the default options though, no addon required to do so.
    Need my status bar down the bottom too.
    FireFox 3 needs only one thing for me.
    More speed, just more and more speed - that's it. It's otherwise, EXACTLY what I want in a browser.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 )

      NCSA Mosaic was pretty decent too...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Chrome UI = slick and to the point
      Firefox UI = clunky

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Where "slick and to the point" means "hide things that are useful for some, but most don't care about, by default". And clunky means "show things that most don't care about, but are useful for some, by default".

        The only meaningful changes are the tab locations (I get the semantic difference of tabs on top / tabs below - but personally I'm not dim enough to not see beyond the semantics, and know that if I happen to want to click through the tabs, they're in a less error-prone location if they're below), and

      • Re:As long as they stick with that UI (Score:4, Insightful)

        by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @07:11PM (#35424690) Journal

        Interesting. I find myself doing a lot more hunting for stuff in Chrome. Firefox functionality seems to be just there where I need it. At least, after I configure a couple of buttons back into play, and turn off a toolbar or so.

        Except the status bar. They're freaking me out with making it go away, then bringing it back only it's broken, etc. But there's a 3rd-party status-bar plugin that makes it behave the old way. I forget the name or I'd plug it here.

        • The back button is in the top left.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jez9999 ( 618189 )

          They're freaking me out with making it go away, then bringing it back only it's broken, etc.

          Agreed that taking it away sucked, but what is it about the new style that is 'broken'? I'm using FF4 beta 12 now and it seems to be working as intended - popping up for loading status messages or URLs when I hover over links.

          And yeah, give me a 'clunky' (read: functional) UI any day over minimalist Chrome. The first thing I do with FF4 is configure large icons mode with icons and text, and add a bunch of buttons b

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by blair1q ( 305137 )

            In b12 it pops up into the viewable area for the webpage, even if the status bar is there. That's annoying and annoying (especially in the M$-alternative world) is the same as broken. It should use the otherwise dead space in the status bar if the status bar is visible.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I pretty much second this. The option for the simplified UI is good, especially for users on netbooks and the like with smaller screens. But, for me I like having a status bar and I prefer my title-bar to be just that, not a place to stick parts of the app.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Get off my lawn!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      as hardware improves

      It's 2011. This is your improved hardware.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )

      Yes, I know they are copying the _ridiculous_ tabs on the top UI from chrome, it can be disabled in the default options though, no addon required to do so.

      Tabs on top works reasonably well in Windows 7 when you're space constrained. i.e. on a 10" netbook you can squeeze the menu and tabs into a single row which saves a lot of space. Now with the status hover working properly that's even more space saved. The screen is so small that the window is more likely to maximized so it's easy to travel and stop over a tab which will be at the top of the display.

      I think on large displays, it doesn't work so well. Space is not so critical and the window is less likely

    • Re:As long as they stick with that UI (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jrcamp ( 150032 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @11:22PM (#35426378)

      Please explain why tabs on top are "ridiculous".

      Also, it appears the only reason you think the Chrome UI is inferior to Firefox's is because you're used to Firefox. And you know what, it's perfectly reasonable to say "I stay with Firefox because I'm used to the UI". But to say you don't use Chrome because it's not Firefox is patently ridiculous.

      • One point is that it's not consistent with the rest of the OS UIs. On the other hand, I do like tabs on top ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Max_W ( 812974 )

      Me too. I like Firefox UI and I do not like Chrome and IE UIs.

      I also do not like that I cannot add an SSL (https://) certificate exception at Chrome and IE.

      How can I use a browser for local development, if I cannot add an SSL certificate exception? Even for https://localhost/ [localhost] .

      I hope Google dismiss Chrome UI designers and create a normal convenient browser, where I do not have to search for 20 minutes a menu item.

      I guarantee that with the present UI Chrome will never get a considerable market share.

  • Considering that version 8 apparently increased JavaScript performance by 100% over version 7, version 9 increased it by 50% over version version 8 and now version 10 increased it 66% over version 9, I cannot help but wonder when JavaScript performance will become more maxed out.

    Obviously not all JavaScript performance tests are created equally, but their gains are quite impressive nonetheless. Wonder what will happen if when they start using the GPU like IE9?

    • IE 9 uses the GPU for hardware accelerated graphics, not Javascript.

      Also, Chrome 10 already does hardware accelerated features. New for this release is GPU accelerated video, but accelerated compositing is in since earlier.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      It sounds like they're testing lots of features, a few of which are horrendously slow, and fixing the slowest ones each time. So you could see a continuous string of 30-70% improvements in speed, until all of the features run at the same speed.

  • Improved security with malware reporting and disabling outdated plug-ins by default

    I've had a grudge on Google due to their plugin status quo, because I've been burned with firefox and now prefer to update plugins manually. Firefox build numbers change little, and plugins can last through a point-zero-point-one update with no problem. Point one changes break them more.

    Chrome updates by full one versions every few months and gives me little choice because their extension model is a lot newer and lacking the community behind it we have in the moz extensions portal. Just the other day an ex

  • Someone needs to write a migration guide.

    Starting at FF with adblock plus, firebug, flashblock, ghostery, noscript, RIP remove it permanently, view dependencies, and xmarks.

    Ending at google chrome with ....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      with...well...nothing.

      Cuz you can't get there from here.

      FF FTW.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      don't bother, something about the chrome plugin infrastructure means plugin blocking can only operate at the page level, either allow or deny all plugins on a page, unlike firefox's noscript which can enable/disable per source domain so you can use a site's scripted navigation without enabling scripts from embedded ads which are more likely to be annoying and more likely to be infected.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Not true anymore. Adblock Plus for Chrome now is virtually indistinguishable from Firefox's and has been for some time.

      • Adblock exists for chrome.
      • Firebug is actually not as good as the built-in Chrome/Safari (Webkit) developer's tools.
      • Flashblock equivalents work fine in Chrome, google flash block chrome.
      • NoScript can't be ported, at least not with whitelists
      • RIP I think not quite all functionality can be ported but there are mostly working equivalents.
      • View dependencies: see webkit development tools, under Resources.
      • xmarks is out for Chrome.

      I should add that the only plugin I really care about, Vimperator, cannot be ported t

  • Just in time (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yesterday I was annoyed that the options page for Chrome wouldn't fit on my netbook's screen. Today I upgrade to Chrome 10 to discover that they made the options screen into a webpage. Google is awesome.

  • Now it is a stable mature product. Twice as good as Safari 5. Much better than IE 8. Not quite as good as Opera 11. And Firefox should hang it's neck in shame for barely reaching 4.

    When the "navigational services" spyware is off by default, when third party cookie rejection a feature that is no longer hidden, and when Flashblock is installed by default, let me know. Otherwise it is just another tool for Google to track me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AntEater ( 16627 )

      Now it is a stable mature product. Twice as good as Safari 5. Much better than IE 8. Not quite as good as Opera 11. And Firefox should hang it's neck in shame for barely reaching 4.

      Bah! That's nothing. I browse using Emacs and that's on version 23.

  • I gave up using it a long time ago since it was such a mess.
    Maybe it's better now. It still lacks most of the stuff & add-ons that FF has which make it such a good web programming/debugging tool.
    Most lacking feature in Chrome: multi-row tabs.

    • It doesn't need addons to be good at web programming/debugging. The built in inspector and javascript debugger is better than firebug.

  • Now how about we get you fellas a good ass bookmarks manager, huh? Wouldn't that just be dandy?

    That's all Google Chrome needs for me now.

  • No thanks! I'm gonna wait until the beta version comes out.

  • Since Chrome's flash plugin didn't have the goodies that Flash 10.2 gave (really reduced my CPU usage on web video sites, made 1080p flash video usable).
    Does Chrome 10 for Mac include the latest Flash hardware acceleration for OSX?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RedK ( 112790 )
      Why don't you type about:plugins in a Chrome window and tell us ? (Btw, yes, it has 10.2).

    • Since Chrome's flash plugin didn't have the goodies that Flash 10.2 gave (really reduced my CPU usage on web video sites, made 1080p flash video usable).
      Does Chrome 10 for Mac include the latest Flash hardware acceleration for OSX?

      You can easily disable Chrome's built-in Flash on OS X - then Chrome will use the same install as all your other browsers.

  • For those that want to skip the blogspam, the official Google post with a bunch of information is here [google.com].

    I was excited at first because it looked like it included a feature I've wanted for ages - Firefox-esque 'master password' for your local password store, but it looks like it's just a locally stored custom passphrase for encrypting your passwords if you're syncing them to Google's online service - more info [google.com].

    As I have so much invested in my saved online passwords I've been reluctant to make the permanent sw

  • Chrome is the epitomy of browsers spying on you. Why the hell do you people like it so much?

  • Chrome on the Mac used to have a nice, native-looking preferences dialog. The move to an in-tab preferences menu is a move away from native components, which I regard as a backward step. The lack of native components was one of the reasons I stopped using Opera.

    Also, when laying out the window bar this time round, Google seem to have copied what Apple did with the Mac App Store and suspended the 'traffic light' buttons in the middle of the bar rather than at the top. It's hideous, and I hope it's not tur

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close