Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Chrome Google Software Upgrades

First Look At Chrome 10 206

jbrodkin writes "Boosted JavaScript performance, Adobe Flash sandboxing, password encryption and an overhauled settings interface are among the new features in Google Chrome 10. JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Look At Chrome 10

Comments Filter:
  • by MrEricSir ( 398214 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @09:12PM (#35449194) Homepage

    ...because it's 1 version more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No need to wait. The beta Chrome 11 is out.

      In fact, why stop there?

      Chrome 12 is available now:

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark.

        Cool story, bro. I'll wait a little bit until I get these same features in Chromium []. Won't take long.

        It is good this way. You don't care about your privacy then you help Google advertise so you help fund the people doing most of the coding. The rest of us thank you for that. You do care about your privacy then you find yourself in a tiny minority that can be treated l

        • I give them my information precisely because they are courteous enough to give me the choice to say no. That's why they get my business. Their willingness to go without means I trust them.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Google 10! It spies on you 17% faster!

            You are Google's product - not Chrome.

            The sell your arse with every click. And you provide them with a means.

            A corporation with 600 USD stock, "giving" you a choice? My God! Are the halls of Google clogged with the footsteps of saints?

            Such charity.

        • Question: What EXACTLY is the point of this ever faster JavaScript race for anyway?

          While I agree with you on privacy (Using Comodo Dragon which is based on Chromium 8) I'm just not getting the "Warp JavaScript" thing since Chromium already loads as fast as my cable will go so is this some "blacker than black" kind of thing or what? Seriously the thing loads as fast as I can click at this point I don't think most of us are gonna notice the 1/50th of a millisecond faster page loading, are we?

          Maybe I'm just w

          • My assumptions was that it's not about JavaScript loading times, but overall JavaScript performance. As a web developer I see that as a Very Good Thing. HTML/CC/JavaScript are currently the ultimate in cross-platform interfaces, and so for devices to be able to run such interfaces a little faster will always be appreciated. As HTML and JavaScript capabilities become more potent, it reduces the need for plugins such as Flash and SilverLight.

            As usual the memory issue is probably to do with your browser keepin

            • by Rob Kaper ( 5960 )

              This is being written on my main machine, which only has a 1.6Ghz single core Atom processor and 1GB of RAM.

              Which phone is that? :D

          • Question: What EXACTLY is the point of this ever faster JavaScript race for anyway?

            Its pretty simple actually. More and more applications are becoming web applications. For Google this is especially important. The more appealing the platform (browser) they can create for developers and users, the more web applications are likely to exist. For Google this directly translates into either revenue or data to be mined, which in turn means revenue.

            Try the about:memory trick in Chrome/Chromium to run tests yourself. With just 5 /. pages open and NO ADS we are talking over 200Mb of memory! For 5 pages of just text?

            The problem with that analysis is that its completely wrong. It gives an extremely poor impression of what is really going on. The simple fact is, it

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I'll avoid Chrome so long as it insists on hourly checking for updates - even when Chrome isn't running.

          Google told me that the only way to uninstall this update thing was to remove all Google applications, and I was happy to oblige.

      • Yeah, what do they mean "first look"? I--and a lot of others--had been using Chrome 10 for weeks.
      • Ha, I'm on Chrome version googol.
    • by Seumas ( 6865 )

      Well, since Google says "versions don't matter anymore" and they're planning on releasing every six weeks, they'll be on version 18 by the end of the year.

  • by moberry ( 756963 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @09:17PM (#35449222)
    I remember installing Chrome when it first came out and them almost immediately uninstalling it. Either it or Symantec EP had a bug, and the browser window would immediately crash. 9 versions later... these guys have made an absolutely incredible product. I simply don't know what I'd do without my bookmark sync. Their app store needs some work, though, right now it's more of a bookmark store.
  • Waste my Time! (Score:5, Informative)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2011 @09:21PM (#35449238) Homepage
    Ack! TFA is a seven or eight page "slideshow" that has pretty much zero actual comment. What a waste.

    And I actually really LIKE Chrome (on the PC; Opera on the phone).
  • At least for me, I've been trying to make it work for more than a year, with the latest version but it is buggy as hell. I'll give it a try when they come with a new version for Linux.
    • huh?
      ive been running chrome on ubuntu for ages now and never ever had even one issue with it. im actually running the unstable versions and theyre perfectly fine.
      i cant see your problem

      • by Kwelstr ( 114389 )
        Always the same console message, as far as I can tell, it is a chrome bug. It just hangs. $ chrome /usr/bin/chrome: /opt/google/chrome/ no version information available (required by /usr/bin/chrome) /opt/google/chrome/chrome: /opt/google/chrome/ no version information available (required by /opt/google/chrome/chrome)
      • Me too, Chrome on OpenSUSE/KDE, absolutely spiffing

    • Chrome 10.0.648.127 beta and Ubuntu jiving just fine over here...
      After a clean install, I installed the stable version on another machine yesterday, through the commandline, even! []
  • lol javascript (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2011 @09:25PM (#35449252)

    Javascript benchmarkS? You mean chrome's own benchmark? Because it's scoring less in SunSpider, and it's certainly not beating IE9 in it. Not that this matters a whole lot, anyway.

    • Regardless of who's faster than who by which benchmark, I don't really know why people care so much about loading a page 105 milliseconds faster.
      • by tjohns ( 657821 )

        It makes a big difference for web-based applications that are implemented primarily in JavaScript.

        For example: If you're designing slides for a presentation, playing a 3D game, or editing a photo -- things that are graphics heavy and CPU intensive -- you want to get as much performance out of the JS interpreter as possible.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's not about pageload time. It's about the ability to run JS heavy pages in a non-painful way. It's about running current JS pages faster, and making what is currently too expensive to implement in a browser usable. Just look at the many many JS based tests, games, and demos that are being developed.
        I'm not saying that moving computationally heavy things into the browser is a good idea, but it does appear to be where things are headed; Talking about a few ms of pageload time is missing the issue entirel
  • What benchmark? (Score:5, Informative)

    by benjymouse ( 756774 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @09:31PM (#35449278)

    TFA is a little thin - it is basically a slideshow.

    Still, IE9 beats out Chrome 10 in webkits own sunspider benchmark. On my old rig:
    IE9: 348.2ms +/- 0.8%
    Chrome: 446.0ms +/- 1.9%

    • TFA uses [] which is a joke.
      A useful benchmark is Futuremark's Peacekeeper, really, since it tests a wide variety of common tasks. On my machine, Chrome's the fastest at raw JS, but (by far) slowest at rendering...besides Firefox, which is actually slowest at -every- benchmark -every- time (by a typical margin of 5-10x or more; 4 RC is even slower than everything else on its own benchmarks like Kraken).
      Even Opera (with no hardware acceleration at all) beats Chrome at

  • You might be able to pretend you're not running complete junk. The benchmark should use a heavy Slashdot comment page. If it can load in three seconds, you gotta winner.

    • by sycorob ( 180615 )
      Heh heh - the Slashdot benchmark. I like it. Load a static 600+ comment story, drag the filter bar to "show every damn thing," then time it. Hard to game that...
  • Dupe? (Score:5, Informative)

    by supersloshy ( 1273442 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @09:37PM (#35449298)

    "Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10 []"

    Is it really this hard for /. editors to use the handy little search function this site provides and see if a story is a dupe? This story was even posted two days ago (albeit on a different website but it's pretty much the same thing).

    • "Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10 []"

      Is it really this hard for /. editors to use the handy little search function this site provides and see if a story is a dupe? This story was even posted two days ago (albeit on a different website but it's pretty much the same thing).

      People like yourself who are too lazy to read full articles love whining about dupes. The problem is that this is not a dupe. The article the other day was about Chrome 10 being released, this article is because someone actually bothered to benchmark it.

      Whether someone benchmarking it is news worthy is a different question but you did not ask it, instead you just carped on about something being a dupe without reading it to see if it contained any new information. Quite often news outlets run a story that i

  • <breathless>JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark.</breathless>

    I just came in my pants! 12% faster!

  • If we're benchmarking unreleased software how about going head to head with FireFox 5? We'll only have to wait a month or so of If FireFox is on the same release schedule as Chrome.

    • IE9 and FF4 are both in RC status. The performance should be identical to the released versions. IE9 is coming out on Monday, so there won't be any performance differences.

  • by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @10:03PM (#35449438)

    Written by John Resig for Mozilla: []

    I'm interested in seeing how much DOM manipulation improves w/ Chrome 10.

    • by afidel ( 530433 )
      The straight DOM modification was the only test where FF4RC1 was significantly faster than Chrome 10 for me. FF was about twice as fast there but Chrome was 1.4x faster on the prototype test and 1.2x faster on the jquery version. Overall through the DOM manipulation tests Chrome 10 averaged about twice as high as FF4 and had instances up to 8x faster. That's pretty much what I've found in my day to day browsing experience as well.
  • NoScript? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AnotherScratchMonkey ( 592037 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @10:03PM (#35449440) Homepage
    I'm still waiting for NoScript [], so I can use Chrome without being blasted with pop-unders and unwanted noisy video ads. Until then, I'll suffer the slowness of Firefox.
  • Does it have a master password yet? Until then there's no way I can use it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BlortHorc ( 305555 )

      Does it have a master password yet? Until then there's no way I can use it.

      Though the 7 slides in TFA contain almost no content at all, this was in fact one of the questions answered: yes, they now have a master password.

    • by afidel ( 530433 )
      On Windows it uses the Windows encryption services so your login password is effectively your master password.
  • I won't touch Chrome as long as it has that horrible interface that looks completely alien in any operating system.

  • And still can't run 'NoScript'. :-(
    Sticking with Firefox until I have the safety of NoScript.

  • Flash seems to be busted for me on Chrome 10. The controls will not work always on youtube. also most of the time if I click a different tab then go back, Flash is replaced with the content of the other tab (it shows what would be in the same location if I was on the other tab). This is happening on my work machine, work laptop and home PC. ::sadface::

    I have been ejoying the FF RC though.

    • It's not "broken" for me per se, but performance is abysmal on snow leopard. Running videos full screen on youtube is unbearable. I'm back to FF for now.
  • by _Shorty-dammit ( 555739 ) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @11:11PM (#35449770)

    Firefox is still faster in at least one real-world web app that matters to me. A free GPS smartphone app called Waze lets you edit and make corrections to the map by signing in to your account on their website. Their editor at [] is where you make these edits, and Firefox is amazingly responsive with this web app. Chrome, on the other hand, has been getting more and more aggravating to use with this app. User input responsiveness has been getting worse and worse ever since Google starting making huge gains in their javascript performance. If I click on a road segment in Firefox it pretty much instantly gets selected and highlighted. There is a very large delay in doing the same thing in Chrome. In Firefox, if I click on some point in the map and drag to move my view of the map, the map starts moving right away. If I do the same in Chrome I get the same glacial delay before it starts moving the map, and every time you drag the mouse before letting go of the mouse button there is the same delay before your movement translates to movement of the map. In fact, any and all user interactions with the app involves an awful lot of delay. And why, I don't know. How come it's perfectly fluid in Firefox, and in Chrome it's an exercise in patience? If Chrome is *that* much faster, why is it an insane amount slower to edit Waze maps with it?

    • You should report this as a performance regression bug in the Chromium bug tracker. It is DOM-related or rendering-related. These seem to be areas that have been neglected due to overshadowing by all the Chrome JS performance work.
    • by mcrbids ( 148650 )

      Interesting result in that it so exactly counters my own experience developing an extremely complex spreadsheet-like application in HTML/JS. Tremendous amounts of DOM manipulation, string/integer comparison, and raw maths.

      IE8 is a non-starter; our clients know this up front. FF isn't bad, but Chrome, especially the last 2 or three releases has come out shining! We've begun specifically recommending it.

      I guess it's not whether or not it's optimized, it's a matter of what you are optimizing for.

    • Just in case you missed the alternative that actually lets people use the map for something try [].

  • I wish they'd spend more time on optimizing operations that modify the DOM, and not just focus on JS optimization. The DOM is still a huge bottleneck.
  • by DusterBar ( 881355 ) on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:57AM (#35450142) Homepage

    Last year, my daughter and I did a web page that generates mazes because she loves mazes and was amazed that I told her that the computer can be made to make one.

    Trying it on IE8, I thought the page was broken. It took almost all day to complete what FF and Safari and Chrome did in seconds.

    I then added some instrumentation and other HTML/DOM layouts to test the browsers. You can see this at []

    By the way, IE9 RC is much better but still an order of magnitude behind Chrome.

  • Can I have mouse gestures that work on speed dial pages yet? What about an actually workable AdBlock / NoScript? The Chrome plugin API is so neutered that if you can't find the functionality in the (sparse) vanilla product, you're basically SOL for the features you find most valuable because plugin developers couldn't implement them properly even if they wanted to.

    I personally can't imagine browsing the Internet without mouse gestures, and that includes the fucking speed dial.
  • Last time I checked I could not use Chrome for browsing documentation loaded from the local disk. This is the most innocent HTML application imaginable - just a frameset with the navigation panel on the left (TOC, Index, etc.) and the actual contents on the right. And Chrome will not allow one frame (e.g. the TOC) to load a page in another frame because it is a security risk. Duh...
  • Currently, there is no need for faster JS except on mobile devices, where jQuery still takes ~500ms to load and parse on every page (measured on an iPhone 3G). The only people who should care about faster JS, apart from the microcosmos of server-side JS people (node.js, RingoJS), are those who want to replace fast, native applications with crappy JS apps run from the browser. Nowdays, at last, desktops perform so well that noone needs to complain about slow, bloated applications and what do we do? We try to
  • I tried out the new settings, and when checking out the password encryption, it automatically loaded KWallet, the default password store in KDE. That's it, as of right now Chromium is my default browser.

  • Chrome is my favorite browser, but it is still slow in some ways. While testing a web app I'm writing, if I hit F5 (Refresh), it takes several seconds for it to reload the page and all its images (even with all content is coming from localhost). Every other browser I test with handles the refresh almost instantly. Sure Chrome runs the JavaScript faster after it downloads it, but something is wrong with the way it manages downloads.

    • by Shados ( 741919 )

      Thats weird. I'm using chrome as my primary browser and for development (until i need firebug anyway. I dislike the Chrome dev tool), and my web app, with douzans of javascript files and hundreds of small images (nothing's combined or minified while I develop), when i hit refresh, loads up in less than a second.

      Thats a "one page loads everything ahead of time and use javascript for everything" kind of app, so there's a LOT of files being loaded (far more than a standard web page, by a few orders of magnitud

      • I agree that it's weird, and I don't remember noticing it with other web apps we've worked on. My co-worker is the primary front-end developer (I do most of the back-end work), and he has gotten very fancy with CSS. I have wondered if it's something specific he's doing that is exploiting a specific problem in Chrome. The main page loads fine, but the images on the page come up very slowly one at a time. On our menu bar, the images show up in order from left to right, and it's very obvious. As I mentioned, a

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Awsome !

    All those things I'll be able to do during those precious milliseconds... !

    Seriously, stop about the stupid javascript speed race, and focus on user experience, protection of privacy.
    Ha damn, we are talking about Google... User privacy is their currency.

    Well good if it pushes competition to improve, other than that I am not sure what to get out of it

The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.