Chrome 44 Launches With Tweaks To Push Messaging and Notifications 67
An anonymous reader writes: Google has launched Chrome 44 for Windows, Mac, and Linux with new developer tools. Aside from a host of security fixes, this release focuses mainly on developer features. The API for push notifications was updated to match the specification, a new implementation of multi-column layout was added, and they've extended support for Unicode escapes in strings. The full changelog notes a number of performance improvements as well.
Lets just hope (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, reading the thread ... you posted something, got modded down, whined about it, and then got told to stop whining about it, and now you're acting like some outraged fool.
Boo hoo, you got modded down on the intertubes. It's not some horrible tragedy, and your continuing to keep bitching about it makes you sound like a child.
Seriously, grow a pair and stop whining about how tragic it is you got moderated down and then told to stop whining about it.
Is that fucking clear enough? Or do you need a time
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and ads, lots and lots of ads - Ads just fucking everywhere, loves me some ads. Mmm-hmm. Don't you love ads, you commie bastard? How do you expect the economy to grow (wink wink nudge nudge) if you don't need to acknowledge an ad for Viagra every five min
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you a fucked-up moron in real life, or do you just play one on slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Glad somebody is taking columns seriously (Score:5, Interesting)
I find the lack of columns one of the more striking failures of CSS design. They don't appear to have consulted with anybody who actually knew anything about why things get laid on on a page the way they do. Line lengths are one of the more important factors in determining how easy it is to read something; the eye has a hard time tracking back on wide texts. Default layouts try to compensate with wide spacing, which just wastes a lot of space (and looks, at least to me, very unappealing).
I look forward to other browsers implementing this, so that web page designers (especially for responsible web pages) start using it instead of the hacks and design compromises they're currently forced into.
Re: (Score:3)
One striking failure of website design is to make it as large as the browser window. Up to a point it used to be a good thing until we reached 1024x768 displays. But with today's widescreen monitors it doesn't even make sense to have your browser window full-width to begin with...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Adding multi-column support will only encourage poorly designed websites to USE it. It may work in a few select scenarios, but most of the time, it will encourage one of two bad designs:
A. Two columns that both extend down the page "below the fold," such that you have to scroll down to finish the first column, then back to the top to read the second. Ugh.
B. Cutting off page content "at the fold" and forcing a slideshow on any content that extends beyond what's visible on one screen.
Multi-columns mi
Re: (Score:2)
The single column approach is implemented poorly too. Very often, my experience is that the white space on either side is not proportional to the width of the window. What happens is that the page extends past the left and right window borders and the page has to be scrolled horizontally to center the text within the window. Even worse is reading on the phone and having the column not shrink to the width of the window.
Re: (Score:1)
But with today's widescreen monitors it doesn't even make sense to have your browser window full-width to begin with...
Sure it does. Today's wide-screen monitors almost seem to have been designed for browsers with tabs on the side, but Google refuses to see that. In Firefox, I can allocate 20% of my wide screen to the browser tabs, which makes them wide enough to actually read the text within the tabs! Imagine that!
Chrome will remain a 3rd-rate browser until it makes (at least) 3 changes:
1) Natively allow tabs on the side (often called vertical tabs)
2) Fix the shitty memory allocation
3) Use/obey/follow DNS shortcuts instead
Re: (Score:2)
Especially with the large number of small devices in the mix. Increasingly, web sites are targeting tiny screens. Which actually makes the column feature moot; this feature would have come in handy a while ago.
Fortunately, if done properly, it degrades nicely. Small screen, one column. Wide screen, several columns (which has advantages over scrolling, since it's easier for the eye to jump a column than to keep track of a position during a scroll.)
Re: (Score:1)
Hi user:sexconker (1179573), we know it's you, you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box earlier:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
1. Define "fast", are we talking 3 second load time or something else
2. What Features you need vs what you want, why are you using that site
3. Hardware, are you using a 10 year old computer to use something feature rich like Facebook?
One solution is to write your own extension to block shit you don't want that's slowing your experience down.
The final thing I can think of is maybe its the browser you're using. I used to think my old (8 yrs old) computer had some kind of problem, I was running Chrome and it w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a professional web designer, but I've taken a few jobs doing it.
They do it because that's what their customers want.
Most of the people wanting websites (and willing to pay for them) aren't tech savvy. They're business people, often small business people. And to them, all that flashy Javascript and animations look "professional."
I once designed a website for a dialup ISP. The default page template I made for them had one small graphic - their logo. Everything else was standard HTML and CSS 1. It
Meh (Score:1, Funny)
I'll just wait two more weeks for Chrome 76.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometime in the last five releases it feels like the number of memory leaks in Chrome have just skyrocketed. Maybe I'm not the normal use case, but I typically leave Chrome and various tabs open for days or weeks at a time, and eventually causes Windows to panic and close Chrome to recover that memory. My wild-ass-guess is that it's related to HTML5 video but maybe it's something else. I freakin' love chrome, but the memory leaks are seriously making me consider something a little more stable.
Chrome is the only application I use that ever, ever has memory leaks now in 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you're right, an acknowledged bug directly reproducible by using one of Google's core revenue-generating products (YouTube, you may not have heard of it, it's kind of new) is mostly irrelevant and won't cause issues for anyone else. Sorry to make such a fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's just because you don't use Firefox any more. I just switched to Chrome from Firefox because it had become absolutely unusable due to memory leaks.
Opening Firefox in the morning, it loads into ~250,000 K (!) on open. After a day of browsing, and closing back to my single home tab (Google.com), it would be using ~350,000 K. Leave it overnight, with just that home tab open, in the morning it would be using 800,000 K - 1,200,000 K and the entire OS would be at a crawl until I closed the process.
BTW, Chrome always seems to use about 200,000 K - 250,000 K no matter what I'm doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just switched to Chrome from Firefox because it had become absolutely unusable due to memory leaks.
Marty McFly? Welcome back to the future!
Maybe you should look into this whole memory thing as your complaints are very 2005. Sounds like you have a badly behaving plugin given that Chrome uses more memory than any other browser across the board and Firefox hasn't had a decent memory leak for at least as long as the USA has had a black president.
Oh sorry for spoiling that for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the apprehension that Chrome has any control at all over what gets swapped out. Perhaps you should become less ignorant before spouting off.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't actually know what the memory leak is then how do you know if it's in chromium and not the page you are looking at... memory leaks can exist in a piece of javascript code, in which case all chrome can do is limit it's maximum size and warn you about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you upgraded to 64 bit?
Use 32 bit Chrome instead?
Then again now with the version I have (likely 43) Chrome crashes in Windows without Windows ever saying it's running out of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
>Chrome is the only application I use that ever, ever has memory leaks now in 2015.
Have you tried Firefox with Adblock Plus lately? Very fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I being paranoid... (Score:2)
... or it's actually not possible to implement Push Messaging and Notifications without every message going through Google's servers (or GCM, Google Cloud Messaging)? Somehow I don't see this "feature" being all that popular, considering tracking/snooping and Google's discontinuing its services willy-nilly. And it looks like you have to actually pay Google if you want to send more than 10,000 notifications per day.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been living under a rock for the past 7 years?
Dammit, Mozilla! (Score:2)
Geez, another release? Why do they insist on revving the release numbers so often? Mozilla really jumped the shark when they made Chrome match the ridiculous version numbering scheme of Google's Firefox browser.
Every flipping couple of weeks, Mozilla comes out with another version of Chrome with a list of "improvements" that no one wants while ignoring the obvious memory bloat and CPU utilization problems caused by their stupid multiprocess tab browsing. I remember when Mozilla Chrome was a sleek, fast brow
Chrome 44 launches without... (Score:1)