Google Chrome Is Out of Beta

BitZtream writes "This morning Google announced that Chrome is out of Beta, and showing improvements for plugin support, most notably video speed improvements. It also contains an updated javascript engine, claiming that it operates 1.4 times faster than the beta version, and work has begun on an extensions platform to allow easier integration with the browser by third parties."

Comments

OEM deals

[javacowboy]

I'm sure Google is trying to work out deals with OEM's to bundle Chrome on Windows PC's. Obviously, they can't do this while the browser still carries the "beta" tag, which is akin to a scarlet letter.

It's interesting they chose to drop out of "beta" before they implemented one of their supposed top features, namely, cross-platform compatibility.

Neat - Mac OS X ? Linux?

[HaloZero]

Call me when I can get it in .dmg format, or just sudo apt-get install GoogleChrome

Don't forget the WebKit team

[Midnight Thunder]

The WebKit team and anyone who ever contributed to it should also get praise. Without it Chrome would never have seen the light of day. Google Chrome is essentially Google's chrome around the rendering engine and any tweaks they provided to WebKit.

Re:Don't forget the WebKit team

[chrysalis]

Before anyone else, thanks to the KDE team. It looks like Apple and Google names shadow the developpers behind KHTML, but WebKit would probably never have existed as it is now without KHTML.

Re:Don't forget the WebKit team

[onefriedrice]

Nobody said WebKit should get all the praise...

Re:Addons

[LingNoi]

Great, however "going to" isn't "already support".

Re:Addons

[windsurfer619]

Please stop telling everyone about it! I want slashdot to remain free.

Re:Attn: Network admins Security issue

[BitZtream]

So, you mean, it was written properly and doesn't require admin rights. So assuming you've properly configured your PC and network this software is not a major threat since it never needs to elevate itself to admin status. It can still damage files and network resources your user has access to, but thats generally far less damaging than taking over the entire PC and effective any user that logs into it or any network resource it has access to.

Your comment is extremely ignorant and indicates that you have no clue about being a network or systems admin. You can run firefox on any windows machine that has a writable directory on it, same for almost all properly written software. Good luck running a windows PC without a writable directory some where, you'll break to many legitimate apps.

So if your idea of 'security' is because the 'installer' doesnt write to any other directory than the 'program files' directory, then you have no security at all. What do you do about the people who install software on their own PC at home then just copy the files to a USB drive, bring it to your network and copy those files to the %TEMP% directory, or their %USERPROFILE% or %APPDATA% directories, all of which you will typically have write access to?

Google isn't going to 'fix' this 'issue' because the 'issue' is with the person who thinks a flaw, no amount of complaining to anyone is going to help you, all the people you would be complaining to have about a billtion times more of a clue than you do about the 'issue'.

Re:just what we need

[glittalogik]

Vauxhall Astra
Opel Astra
Chevy Astra
Saturn Astra
Holden Astra

QED

Re:Out of beta?

[Khuffie]

I read somewhere a reasoning for this: that google wants OEMs to bundle Chrome with their browser, and OEMs don't want to bundle software marked as 'beta', hence, magically, Chrome comes out of beta!

Re:Addons

[trawg]

Weird, why was this moderated Funny?

I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.

Yes, sometimes they slow page loads, yes, sometimes they're annoying, but they keep sites free.