Slashdot Mirror


Google Chrome, Day 2

Seems that almost every story submitted to Slashdot last night in some way involved Google's Chrome that we started talking about yesterday. Dotan Cohen noted that according to Clicky Chrome has hit 3% browser share. Since Google has decided to release Chrome only for Windows, I now share for you 3 reviews written by others: the first comes from alexy2k, the second from mildsiete, and the third from oli4uk. They all seem to feature various opinions, charts, and screenshots demonstrating various exciting points.

36 of 1,016 comments (clear)

  1. Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I looked at the web logs from a general purpose, non-techy website (Watching Grass Grow) and Chrome accounted for 0.73% of the browser traffic yesterday ... ... and traffic didn't start until after the release at Noon. The User Agent String is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13" For comparison, IE was 53.8%, Firefox was 34.6%, Safari was 3.5% (non-Chrome) , Opera was 0.7%, and there was even 0.05% of traffic from an iPhone.

    That's an impressive bump for day one (actually, half a day) and if you (unrealistically) extrapolated that rate, Chrome would have 100% of the browser market by year end! ;-)

    I had to modify the Analog source code to account for the Chrome browser (gotta like open-source) but have have other popular programs (such as Google Analytics) been updated to identify this browser?

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, you found the comic entertaining? I've got some buckets of paint that are going up on walls soon. Want to buy some tickets for the drying? Only $5 for the lawn tickets, $20 for the reserved seating.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because some foolish web developers disable functionality if they don't see what they expect in the user-agent. As a result, every web browser in existence lies in their user agent string. IE claims to be "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0b; Windows NT 6.0)", for example

    3. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gmail running faster must be the JavaScript. From test results it seems that is the strongest point of the browser: JavaScript performance. Plus some other interesting features such as each tab it's own process. But JavaScript performance is of course what they are after: then Google Docs will run much much better, making it more attractive for people to start using.

    4. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It all started when idiotic websites started testing for 'Mozilla' in the User-agent string to make their sites break when you weren't using Netscape. So to keep compatibility, Microsoft decided to put 'Mozilla (compatible; blah blah)' in their User-agent string. The mess used by Chrome is the apex of User-agent stupidity, so far. All those strings are in there so that badly configured webservers won't serve the wrong content. The next browser that replaces Chrome will no doubt include this string and add even more words.

      I wonder if Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Opera, Apple and others could get together to declare a User-agent flag day when, on the first of January 2009, all User-agent strings would remove the historic cruft and just tell you the browser and version. Sadly this has no chance of happening.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    5. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by Creepy · · Score: 5, Informative

      yeah - I just tested it with a javascript heavy app and it seems very snappy. The same app doesn't even run correctly on Firefox 3 (it does on IE and Firefox 2, and I believe we filed a FF3 bug).

      I have not done extensive testing (heck, it won't be supported, so there is no reason to), but it seems a good effort so far.

    6. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's dotslash?

    7. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the Soviet Russian port of slashdot

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    8. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by teh+kurisu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You obviously missed Chrome's, which never writes that private information to your hard drive in the first place. Much more secure. Safari also does this, has done for a while.

    9. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by rsclient · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, no, it started much earlier than that :-)

      Once upon a time, they made "web browsers". Well, actually, no, what they made was hardware: a hunk of electronics, a keyboard, and a CRT (like a monitor from the days before LCDs). And they called them "terminals", and wired them to the computers. And the software on the computer would sniff the terminal to figure out what type it was so that the correct HTML (I mean, "escape sequences") could be sent. Esc [ 4 m, for example, was "bold". Esc [ 0 m meant make it plain again.

      Only it turns out there was one popular terminal, the VT100 from the ever-present Digital Equipment Corporation ("DEC". Later they called themselves "Digital"). (Only it wasn't actually popular; the actual popular version was the VT102). So every minor terminal maker -- and there were hundreds -- would lie, and claim to be a VT100.

      How do I know this? Because I worked on RS/1, an interactive statistical package and had to support those hundreds of terminals. And what a pain it was.

      --
      Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
    10. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by antic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and I forgot to ask - why has Taco linked to a "review" by someone who openly admits to not having even downloaded the product!?

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    11. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by nigels · · Score: 5, Informative

      Two significant gaps for me:
      - No AdBlock!
      - No cookie and/or blocking.

      Uh oh.

    12. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by dintech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is Google so think of their business model. Why would they want to block ads?

    13. Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome by acvh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "When you hit Ctrl+N the window that pops up is a blank window. In IE it's a clone of the current window, which is far more useful."

      funny, but when forced to use IE, I HATE when it does that. Why would I want another window with the same page in it? I want a NEW window, that I will cause to be populated with a url of my choice.

      "That and the downloads get cancelled if you close the browser - in IE they are seperate processes which live past the browser being closed."

      funny, again. When I close an application I want it to close; go ahead and ask me to confirm, but don't pretend to close and keep doing stuff.

      and, NO, I never feel guilty blocking ads, just as I don't feel guilty skipping commercials on my DVR, or not reading ads in newspapers, or throwing out those little cards in magazines. advertising is, by its nature, hit or miss. consider me a "miss".

  2. A couple of annoying things I've found so far by rallymatte · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can't seem to change the default new page. For example, open up a new tab and you'll see recently closed tabs and most visited pages. If a collegue wants to use a browser on your computer you might not want him to see a screenshot on your most viewed pages.
    The other thing that I personally find a bit annoying is that if you don't put http:/// in front of or / after a url that is within one of your search domains, it automatically assumes that you want to search the web for that, lets say there's a server on your network that you haven't visited before called server1.domain.com and you have domain.com among your search domains, it will go off to google.com and search for server1 if you only type in server1 in the address bar. But then again, maybe that's just me.

    -
    Posted with Google Chrome

  3. Chrome Eval by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tried it out on my XP box yesterday and I was very impressed with it, especially its speed, but a quick look through the options revealed that DNS prefetching is enabled by default.

    The show-stopper is(as of now) no NoScript/AdBlock! I've become spoiled with ad-free pages and seeing that first obnoxious flash ad was enough to convince me to keep FF as my browser of choice -- at least until a few plug-ins are made for Chrome.

    1. Re:Chrome Eval by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      And only for Windows....

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  4. I'll stick with Firefox by Massacrifice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, I still don't see why I'd have to switch from FF3 to this new browser, free or not. I mean, once you get rid of IE's security hole and MS lock-in web technology, a browser's a browser, right?

    I understand that Google want to have their own, but the established base of Firefox, with its plugins and extensions beats all for now, from a desktop user perspective.

    I'll let the hype pass before I have a look.

    --
    -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
    1. Re:I'll stick with Firefox by Tribbin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. The memory tool that displays per-tab mem usage.
      2. Sensible memory management.
      3. Fast?
      4. Sandboxed tabs.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  5. Chrome is spyware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Install it and 'Google Update' is silently installed along with it with no apparent way of turning it off besides regedit/msconfig. So much for "Don't be Evil".

    1. Re:Chrome is spyware! by stickytar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Goto "Under the Hood" in options and uncheck the anonymous statistics submission. Alternatively you can go to your Services and set the Google Updater Service to Disabled. Easy enough.

      --
      believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
  6. Google spying on you by edelholz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently, every installation of Chrome gets an unique id (sorry, German only) and, once you've signed into your Google account ONCE, the unique id gets connected with your account and you'll always be traceable back to your Google account, even if you're not logged in.

    That's a showstopper. But I'm hoping for a spy-free version to be out soon, the beauty of open source!

    1. Re:Google spying on you by Sobrique · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I guess this'll make getting a job at Google interesting...

    2. Re:Google spying on you by spyrochaete · · Score: 5, Informative

      Matt Cutts denies that Google spies on your browsing and form submissions in this post on his blog.

    3. Re:Google spying on you by edelholz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read further on Google's privacy policy for Chrome.

      # When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for. If you choose to share usage statistics with Google and you accept a suggested query or URL, Google Chrome will send that information to Google as well. You can disable this feature as explained here.
      # If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google so we can help you find the URL you were looking for. You can disable this feature as explained here.
      # Google Chrome's SafeBrowsing feature periodically contacts Google's servers to download the most recent list of known phishing and malware sites. In addition, when you visit a site that we think could be a phishing or malware site, your browser will send Google a hashed, partial copy of the site's URL so that we can send more information about the risky URL. Google cannot determine the real URL you are visiting from this information. More information about how this works is here.
      # Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers. These numbers and information about your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language) will be sent to Google when you first install and use it and when Google Chrome automatically checks for updates. If you choose to send usage statistics and crash reports to Google, the browser will send us this information along with a unique application number as well. Crash reports can contain information from files, applications and services that were running at the time of a malfunction. We use crash reports to diagnose and try to fix any problems with the browser.

      So they send them the URLs I visit and there's an unique id. And I'm still to lazy to check out the source about how it's used...

    4. Re:Google spying on you by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I posted this earlier today, but I feel I have to post this again, as it is really important people know what they get in to using this browser:

      In metrics_service.cc [chromium.org]
      it sends everything you do in the toolbar to
      static const char kMetricsURL[] =

              "https://toolbarqueries.google.com/firefox/metrics/collect";
      It collects everything and sends it to google servers, on startup and on shutdown.

      // Ongoing log typically
      // contain very detailed records of user activities (ex: opened tab, closed
      // tab, fetched URL, maximized window, etc.) In addition, just before an
      // ongoing log is closed out, a call is made to gather memory statistics. Those
      // memory statistics are deposited into a histogram, and the log finalization
      // code is then called. In the finalization, a call to a Histogram server
      // acquires a list of all local histograms that have been flagged for upload
      // to the UMA server.
      //
      // When the browser shuts down, there will typically be a fragment of an ongoing
      // log that has not yet been transmitted. At shutdown time, that fragment
      // is closed (including snapshotting histograms), and converted to text. Note
      // that memory stats are not gathered during shutdown, as gathering *might* be
      // too time consuming. The textual representation of the fragment of the
      // ongoing log is then stored persistently as a string in the PrefServices, for
      // potential transmission during a future run of the product.

      WHAT THE FUCK. Keep ff ftw.
      If your privacy means nothing to you just use Chrome.

      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
  7. local anecdote by pohl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my office, there are several windows developers who were excited to try Chrome yesterday - one enthusiastically declaring that he was going to uninstall his other browser as soon as he got home. What struck me about this is that these are people who would never, in a million years, lift a finger to try Safari/Windows - yet here they are drooling over how snappy a WebKit-based browser is. The prospect of increased WebKit adoption makes me happy.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    1. Re:local anecdote by Zoidbergo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would characterize Chrome as "Safari for Windows done right."

      There were massive mistakes Apple made (out of arrogance or incompetence, I'm not sure), when releasing Safari for Windows:

      - Apple style Font rendering. Having to switch your eyes between Safari's anti-aliasing and ClearType on a regular basis starts to hurt your eyes, one seems blurry in comparison to the other.
      - Safari didn't follow many of the standard windows app behaviors, another snafu. You can't stuff OS X app behaviors down the throats of Windows users, and vice versa.
      - It also had an incredibly slow startup time. (Although it would render extremely fast)

      Contrast this to Chrome, which renders text using ClearType and windows font rendering, behaves like a windows app, starts up really fast.

      It's not even like I'm bashing Apple for a bad port. iTunes for windows was ported really well, it follows (for the most part, except menus) the windows UI conventions and font rendering, so it feels more like a Windows app.

      (By the way, I'm primarily a Mac user and use Safari regularly on the Mac)

  8. Yuck by Bazman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll start using Chrome the instant they have a plugin that blocks annoying flashing multi-colour favicons.

    [for those who haven't read the links, just go to the second so-called 'review' link, which is really a review of reviews...]

  9. Reviews suck by Phylarr · · Score: 5, Informative

    One reviewer hadn't even installed the browser yet. Seriously.

    I installed Google's browser. It sucked. Didn't ask where I wanted to install it. No adblocker (and probably never will be). Very limited configuration options. Couldn't handle my font colors. Set GoogleUpdate.exe to run every time my computer starts. Took me to a "why are you uninstalling it" web form when I went to uninstall it, and the web form didn't work. Ass sucking from start to finish. Classic Google.

    --
    "Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life" [vhemt.org]
  10. Re:How do they do it? by pohl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did they use large chunks of other open-source browsers? If so, which ones?

    Yes, they chose the WebKit rendering engine, which is the same one you find in browsers like Konqueror, Safari, and Google's own Android platform.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  11. DO NOT READ 3rd link by FiloEleven · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not malicious or anything, it's just very, very poor writing and will make you angry.

  12. Re:Firefox Fanboys Are Shitting Themselves by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  13. The jewel in this software is V8 by kriston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The user interface is limitted and the options available for customization are practically nonexistent based on a somewhat single-sided view from Goodger that browsers should not be customizable.
    The real value of Chrome is V8, the JavaScript engine, and the smart, asynchronous management of native-code JavaScript objects on the client (without re-parsing them over and over).

    V8 will be released to the open source community and hopefully will be the standard JavaScript engine for Firefox which actually has a useful user interface.

    I can't really speak of Gears, though, but I think the real value of this release is V8.

    --

    Kriston

  14. General impressions by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

    Overall, very impressive. I'm no Google fanboy, and I disliked their desktop apps previously, but this one looks like it was designed by good UI usability experts. The overall philosophy seems to be close to GNOME in that few things are configurable, but the rest tends to seamlessly work "the right way" (and that coming from a user of Opera, which has hundreds of configuration options, is saying something). Toolbar icon theme is instant classic - very clear and without flashy colors, looking much better than either IE, Firefox or Opera. Some inconspicuous animation effects when opening/closing/dragging around tabs make it very clear what's going on. By the way, have you noticed that the loading indicator on the tab turns counter-clockwise when HTTP request is being sent, and clockwise when HTTP reply is being received, and that its rotation speed indicates up/download speed? Also note the tooltip-like popup at the bottom of the window with full URL when you hover mouse over a link.

    Some stuff is less obvious. For example, there are tab groups, even though they're not color-coded as in IE8. To observe them, open 4 tabs from 2 different domains - say, first 2 for kernel.org, the other 2 for slashdot.org. Then try middle-clicking links in the 1st and the 3rd tabs. You'll see that newly created tabs go at the end of the respective tab groups (and not at the end of the tab bar, or immediately after the current tab). This seems to be based on the full domain name of the site though, and not on user interaction like in IE8 (which groups together all tabs opened from within the same "parent" tab), which is mildly annoying on /. which varies domains - so tech.slashdot.org won't group with games.slashdot.org, for example.

    Interstingly enough, UI looks better on Vista rather than XP. On Vista Aero, the tab bar itself is glass-translucent underneath (like IE7's tool/address bar), and when maximized, the tabs are interposed right on top of the window title bar, saving screen space. On XP, it emulates Vista's large window decorations to achieve the same effect, but obviously no translucency, which rather spoils the effect. Overall, it looks somewhat out of place on an XP desktop (particularly if you have Windows theme set to Classic, or indeed anything other than the bluish Luna), but fits right in on Vista.

    Speed: very impressive. Rendering is very fast. No UI slowdown I can notice under any circumstances. I guess we'll see JS benchmarks soon enough.

    That said, it's not without issues. For starters, where's my smooth scrolling? And why is scroll-on-middle-click, which has been available in every single browser since at least IE4 (maybe earlier, I just can't remember now), is gone?

  15. Re:Incognito mode actually isn't really so... by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google still has your browsing history nicely tracked, stored on their computer, available for subpoena etc.

    Do they say that in that link you provided? In fact, the link says something opposite. And they make it pretty clear what is sent to Google, when and how to disable it.

    If you want to continue with FUD, that's fine by me, but you can help yourself by not weakening your own arguments.