Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Chrome 2.0 Pre-Beta
Nick Fletcher writes "Just a few short months after the initial release, Google has released a pre-beta version of Google Chrome 2.0. It sports a few new features including form auto-completion, full-page zoom, 'profiles,' and Greasemonkey support. It seems the only notable feature would be profiles, which allows users to separate out their homepage, history, and bookmarks on a per user or category basis. It seems Google is still playing catch-up but they're definitely moving at a pace unknown to some of their competition. The full list of new features is available in the release notes."
Not too many exciting new features, I'm not sure why they call it 2.0.
Form autocomplete? It's about time. Not that I like the feature anyway, it's too dumb. 90% of the time it doesn't offer any suggestion (wild guess, if a web site asks for my name, maybe my browser might know the answer). The rest of the time (10%), it has a fifty-fifty chance of guessing right.
Full-page zoom and auto-scroll? Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.
Profiles? Ok, could be moderately useful. It sort of conflicts with the OS's notion of swapping between users. So I'd use it more as a workaround because bookmarks are hard to organize.
Greasemonkey scripts? That's my favorite. But it's for power users only. Just read the instructions and imagine your grandma giving it a try:
To enable this experimental feature you need to right-click on Chrome's shortcut from your desktop, select Properties and add --enable-user-scripts in the Target field. While you're in the Properties dialog, click on "Open File Location" and create a folder named User Scriptsin the user data directory, where you'll need to manually save scripts.
--
FairSoftware.net
What's the point of profiles in a web browser when you have fast user switching (and/or whatever MS calls their equivalent function)? Seems like that's the point of a multiuser operating system...
Gimme Firebug....or perhaps that should be ChromeBug.
Pre-Beta is what Beta used to mean before Google came along... Will GMail ever get out of Beta?
Oh, wait - nevermind.
Nothing to see there, move along...
#DeleteChrome
Alpha Beta? Or, an Omega Beta (sorry...)
Sorta like "pre/proto-pregnant"...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Would be nice if these guys would focus some on satisfying the other OS markets. There's absolutely no need for them to take such tremendous advantage of Open Source and then neglect them in such a long term way as they have with Chrome.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
What would keep Google from taking Firefox's source code and copying it or using it as a reference for upcoming features? Could google decide to "borrow" the code/technology for Firefox's awesome bar?
I tried the first Chrome release and was duly impressed, especially for script speeds on "web 2.0" apps. But no adblock (and less importantlly, TabMix plus tab options) is a deal breaker. When Chrome does adblock I'm there.
Note that Adblock really doesn't impact google's ads -- it primarily blocks graphical/flash crap ads, at least using the filtersets I subscribe to, so it wouldn't hurt google to allow it, and might even help them (absent other flashing "punch the monkey" and "abort the fetus" ads google's often-relevant text ads tend to stand out more.)
Do it google! Let us bock ads and mix tabs!
everything in moderation
Really??? Pre-beta? Why didn't they just stick with the perfectly good terms and call this type of thing a beta and the other stuff they call a Beta a Release?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Blogger Belzecue said on January 8, 2009 10:55 PM PDT:
Johnny Effyew here, lead strategist at Google.
Now, I hear a lot of complaints -- a helluva lot of complaints, actually -- about Google not supporting Linux, like how Google Chrome runs on Windows only. Sure, we're already up to version 2 of the Windows client with no Linux version in sight. That may be technically true, but I'm here to tell you, we built our entire company and fortune on the back of Linux and free, open-source software. So of course we support Linux just as much as we support Windows.
That's why it's my pleasure today to announce we've committed to delivering a native Linux Chrome client by 2015 or by the time the Windows client reaches version 10 or when Linux gains greater than 50% of the desktop market. That's our promise to every Linux user out there. You can take that to the bank. We know we have a moral debt to give back to the Linux community what we took from them and turned into a billion-dollar business. We know that.
But, as it turns out, writing software for Linux is kinda tough. We're still figuring it out. I mean, we all use Windows around the Google office, so it's not like we've got a bunch of internal people clamoring to use Chrome under Ubuntu or whatever.
And yes, we know there are much smaller companies out there like Dropbox who easily manage to code and release their Windows and Linux clients simultaneously, which is kinda like having your cake and eating it too. We think that's really cool, and we especially like cake. So that's doubly cool.
So hang in there, Linux community. Google Chrome for Linux is coming. In the meantime, just keep screwing around trying to run the Windows client under Wine. Good luck with that, hahahaha. Yeah, that should keep you nice and busy while we eat more cake and polish off version 3 of the Chrome Windows client. (Whoah, did I just say that out loud or think it? Pfffft, like those Linux fanboys will notice anyway.)
Folks, in closing let me say again: Google is committed to Linux the same way a tapeworm's committed to your lower intestine. From now on, when you think of Google and Linux I want you to think of me, Johnny. Think "Effyew, Linux! Effyew, Google!"
That's one of the main reason I didn't switch. The zoom implementation was useless, and I always use zoom to fill my widescreen monitor.
Unfortunately I also don't like very much the "single address and search box" concept, but maybe I can get used to that after all so I guess I'm going to give it another try.
It's so easy to be pessimistic. The first version was quite good and innovative to be the first version. And it has been developing very well since then.
Speed, screen estate saving etc are very important things. If chrome also manages to keep memory footprint relatively small as it grows & adds features more people will be converted. ... and of course we first need the native linux version.
Ville / Varuste.net
This was the one reason I never tried Chrome. I play a lot of Travian http://travian.com/ and there are a few Greasemonkey scripts (Travian Mod Kit and Beyond Travian) without which the game would be unbearable for serious players. On large accounts with 20+ villages, those scripts save hundreds of page loads.
I'll still wait until Chrome 2 reaches at least Beta status though. Regardless of who releases the software, I'm not in the mood to try Alpha software.
All that vitriol, and Firefox is still the best browser on the market. That must really burn your ass.
Reasons being: -
1: I miss my extensions especially the weather extension.
2: My school and bank do not allow anything other than Firefox and IE. Firefox has just been supported for a year.
3: I do not want to learn another [Google] paradigm of doing things on the browser.
4: I am contented with the two choices available to me as of now.
I remember trying to get into coding with Firefox and it ended up being a nightmare and just not worth the effort mess. And the times I've come across Firefox devs in forums they really came across as outright pricks.
Everyone remembers of course having to listen to Firefox devs sitting around in Slashdot stories about the horrible Firefox memory leaks ripping into people with the 'it's not a memory leak, it's a feature' bullshit.
Google's code is of incredible quality from what I've seen so far. And it is incredibly easy to get in and start working on the project. And the Google engineers have shown themselves to be both brilliant and friendly. So far nothing but positive impressions.
Are they supporting the BSDs yet?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't run browsers that can't run adblock or similar. Thanks though.
or when Linux gains greater than 50% of the desktop market.
Fortunately, 2009 is the year of Linux on the desktop.
Let me attach the tabs to the top of the pane (the part that actually changes when you select a different tab) instead of the window (no, the location bar doesn't change, its content does... but so does the title bar's and that's still above the tabs).
But it is all somewhat meaningless, whether Chrome passes ACID3 or not, since Chrome is meant to support a company that sells advertising.
I'm guessing that Chrome will never have AdBlock Plus and NoScript.
It's all about control. Firefox allows you to control what you read. Many advertising companies try to change readers into time-wasting, ad-reading, money-wasting robots.
Those who don't like being the target of aggressive behavior and want control over their lives will need to continue to use Firefox, no matter how technically superior Chrome is.
Form autocomplete? It's about time. Not that I like the feature anyway, it's too dumb. 90% of the time it doesn't offer any suggestion (wild guess, if a web site asks for my name, maybe my browser might know the answer). The rest of the time (10%), it has a fifty-fifty chance of guessing right.
The auto complete isn't guessing. The reason that it doesn't always know your name is because different web sites give the fields with more or less the same meaning different names (name as in html attribute, not as in the label). They do this because the web front end reflects whatever backend that the site runs on.
/><input type="text" name="lastname" />
/>
/> />
As a web developer, you might want somebody's first name and last name separately, (for example, if you have to check a cc number against it) in which case you would use a two fields like this:
Name:<input type="text" name="firstname"
Or, it might just be to display your name to other users, in which case you don't care and to keep your database simple you just do:
Name:<input type="text" name="name"
Or, you might be asking for login credentials, so you'll ask for: Name:<input type="text" name="firstname"
Or, you might want to be preventing bots from trying to use usernames/passwords harvested from another, insecure sight, so you'll obfuscate like this:
Name: <input type="text" name="wxys"
As you can see, form auto complete has no way of knowing which entries it should use. However, auto-complete is far from useless. We have a web-based client management database where I work, and there the browser does know what to put in the fields because, obviously, the fields are consistently named. In this case, it is a huge time saver. It just seems dumb to you because you have not really needed to use it for what it was intended for.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Does it render embedded IFRAMES correctly yet? Can it correctly stream multiple flash movies in various tabs all at once without completely crashing to the ground in a pile of slag worthy of Windoze 3.0?
It is useful at all? Currently it takes all of 3 minutes for Chrome to run into a basic surfing task that it cannot do, on my own sites, on public sites, on the intranet, wherever. I just can't seem to use it for any real task for any real length of time. It just fails.
I realize it's Beta, but I would call it more like pre-alpha.
Whatever features continue to get added are nothing but bloat now.
There, fixed that for ya.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
I use chrome almost all the time now because it's lots faster than FF or IE. However there are some complaints back from the 0.4 versions that they still have not solved, and which really spoil the experience: 1) still problems with hotmail.
2) frequent hangups that cause the entire program to fail, independent of the sandboxed tabs.
3) too limited crash recovery.
You, sir, have some serious problems that no amount of development of Gtalk could ever begin to address.
in the footsteps of Firefox on the road to bloatville :(
Why not try Psi http://psi-im.org/? It's a great Jabber client with a simple interface that doesn't get in the way but still provides all of the features you would expect. It's the best IM client I know of on Windows (at least until Kopete finishes getting ported).
Google does image and video ads, not just text ads.
Whatever features continue to get added are nothing but gravy now.
You're the guy that rides a motorcycle because it it's "an even better feeling" and "utterly annihilates in realworld performance". You don't mind the lack of windshield and protection from weather, heater, cooler, safety, ability to hit a pothole without dying.
The rest of use 'drive' firefox because when you compare them feature by feature chrome is like tinkertoys. We want the safety of noscript, real-world web pages to render properly, the layers of goo that make it run on linux, mac, and windows, the support for favorite-plugin.
And it runs on Linux?
??
Come on, Google, don't be a dick.
I'd boycott you or something, but it's not like I pay for any of your services anyway. And they're all pretty good. Except for Chrome and its weird interface and its not-running-on-Linux yet. >:3
pff... we will never get a Linux Chrome client, I mean, 2015? dont they know 2012 is the end?!
Well, PDF had vector graphics from the start, so that was a no-brainer. With the web, people were holding out for scalable webpages to be done right. SVG was the solution to that, not scaling up bitmaps with disregard for their intended size, resolution, and fundamental function. But someone got bored and did it wrong, and now we'll all pay, just like, for years, we've been paying for blink tags being used for animation and emphasis, and tables being used for layout.
Isn't it 200?, or maybe 200*. Damn wildcards...
Actually don't want a repeat of the Y2K disaster, 20?? or 20**
Alternately, you can use Firebug Lite on any browser. It's not perfect, but it still works.
I still use Firefox because I need a bit more than a rendering engine.
Any dev work requires validation tools. I need to be able to manipulate CSS on the fly. I need to be able to see and modify headers.
Yes, chrome is good if your use case fits in with the absolute bare necessities (which is probably 3/4 of the web surfing public), but don't be getting all high and mighty about your new "cool club" when there are very good reasons your cool club can't offer the things that many people need in order to just do their job.
Fine, you're just a "web surfer", and chrome works for you. For me and anyone else who needs a bit above just the bare basics, Chrome doesn't cut it, yet.
I hate printers.
Why not simply Alpha release? Of course, that's not quite correct either.
Where I come from, alphas are released to internal software testers. Betas are the builds that have passed the alpha stage, and are released to select few or limited number of users for further testing before hitting the public.
Meh... Why aren't there any standards for software builds and version numberings that everyone can follow?
-- Chaos, panic, pandemonium... My job here is done!
dont they know 2012 is the end?!
Exactly! That is the point!
It's not quite as nice as AdBlock, but Privoxy is doing a swell job of blocking ads in Chrome. The biggest problem with Privoxy is that it's all or nothing. Otherwise it's about 95%(*) as effective as AdBlock at stripping out ads.
* - 67% of all statistics are made up.
I agree, although Chrome actually did add some nice web development tools they aren't on the level of Firebug yet. But they did add an Inspect Element menu item which shows all the CSS properties applied on an element fairly nicely, almost exactly the way Firebug does it, too. Too bad it doesn't let you modify on the fly like Firebug does, which is the real useful feature. They also ripped another feature straight from Firefox 3.1 - if you drag a tab off of the tab bar it pops out into its own window. Personally, I think that feature is useless but it's interesting to see them mirroring Firefox development like they are.
All your base are belong to Wii.
You're the guy that rides a motorcycle because it it's "an even better feeling" and "utterly annihilates in realworld performance". You don't mind the lack of windshield and protection from weather, heater, cooler, safety, ability to hit a pothole without dying.
Yep, I'm that guy. A bike does have an even better feeling. And, yes, utterly annihilates in real world performance. Insensitive clod. But because I love a bike doesn't mean I don't have use for a car. Most of your arguments against a bike are bad. Try cargo space (strapping 2x4s to my back doesn't work real well), passenger space, and long road trip comfort.
As for windshields? Put a helmet on. Weather? Put on a set of leathers. Heater? I have heated hand grips. Cooler? Ride faster :P Potholes? Just maneuver around them (and I have hit some pretty big ones, it's jarring, but I'm not dead). Sheesh.
just an analog boy living in a digital age.
You can use The Proxomitron to block ads in Chrome.
It does the ad-blocking at the proxy level, where it should go, rather than at the plugin level.
It works with any browser.
They also ripped another feature straight from Firefox 3.1 - if you drag a tab off of the tab bar it pops out into its own window. Personally, I think that feature is useless but it's interesting to see them mirroring Firefox development like they are.
I'll give you one example where I would use that feature (and will whenever I upgrade FF). I'm a spreadsheet junkie and keeps lots of data like personal finance and other crap on EditGrid online spreadsheets. I usually work in tabs, but when updating these sheets, I need a new window so I can place one browser on monitor #2 which has my data and one browser on monitor #1 where I hand enter the data.
There are other times I need 2 browser windows, not tabs, for the full view, but I tend to forget until I'm in the middle of my work and want to "tear off" the tab. Instead I have to copy the URL and open a new window ... not life changing but sounds like a handy feature.
Actually, I realized that I occasionally do use multiple windows, usually when watching a video on youtube and wanting to look up other stuff at the same time. For some reason I usually open up another browser, since I've specifically disabled Firefox from allowing multiple windows. If you're interested in that feature you might want to try a 3.1 beta or nightly; the feature currently needs a lot of polish IMO. I haven't done anything to trigger it recently but I remember when it first landed people were complaining that it was too oversensitive to dragging tabs around by accident. Since you seem like you would use it, maybe you would be a good tester. If you check out the mozillazine.org forums in the Firefox Builds board, there are threads on how to set up nightlies alongside your stable install with a new profile and such so as not to cause any problems.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Like this one?
I can hardly wait for Chrome on Linux so I can officialy reject their evil offer by blogging about how I like my privacy and why firefox is better.
My understanding is that the sole developer of Proxomitron died several years ago, and that it is no longer being maintained. Is that true?
Remind me to never hire you as an exterminator....
I assume most on this website are like me. I have a circle of friends/family that look to me for all of their computer needs. They use Firefox because I showed it to them. I run Linux. By not making a Linux version they are not just shutting out 1% of the market, they are shutting out all of those Windows users that surround me. I don't suggest Chrome because I don't even have the opportunity to use it at home. If I am the 1 in a hundred that use Linux you can add 20 to 30 to me when it comes to what software gets a thumbs up, a thumbs down and an unknown. So really they are leaving out 20 to 30% of the market by not making a Linux version.
I know I wouldn't have a problem at all paying google a reasonable sum per year-probably through a very modest isp hit, get it through them as an option-so that I could use a good search service that was ad free. And ad free as in if I run a search I *don't* want the whole first page of hits being something for sale that is marginally related to one of the search words, or link/spam farms, along with no ads on the side bar and no google analytics anything wherever I go, just plain search as a paid service. It's a very useful thing they have, just it keeps going downhill from all the ads and "buy me! Antarctica, icebergs! You want icebergs, check out ebay!" ( I saw that once on a google side ad, no lie) They could even have a toggle "repeat search with commercial ads and sites included" so you'd get what you see today with a google search. Not sure what that would be worth, but say an extra 20 bucks a year or something would be fine with me.
So that's one way they could make money without ads.
"As soon as Google releases an add on platform..."
They haven't done that yet. If they do, it is anyone's guess whether Firefox add-ons will be supported, or whether the hard-working AdBlock Plus and NoScript teams will want to develop and maintain a new platform.
There is a huge problem here: Making money through advertising makes it necessary that people see the ads. Google has been spending $50,000,000 per year on Firefox. After Chrome is fully developed, Chrome will likely become the new favorite, replacing the buggy, CPU hogging, badly managed Firefox. Then Google can stop spending that money on Firefox.
This may be several years away, but it is a conflict that is certainly there.
Chrome now has greasemonkey so you could write a userscript to do the job of adblock.
Seeing as adblock (and all firefox plugins) are basically 'interpreted' Javascript and XML I can't see it being much less efficient.
I'm not sure if greasemonkey/userscripts can write to the file system to store filterset updates so you might have to update manually, but...
Of course Google could build advertising into the GUI but then it would just be adware and nobody would use it.
... when most of it is copypasta of parts of Firefox code, with an adapter to attach it to the WebKit document interface.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
If you're you're right, I hope someone shares the script here. I have a feeling it might be tougher than you think, because Adblock understands regular expressions, wildcards, etc.
Most of your arguments against a bike are bad. .... As for windshields? Put a helmet on. Weather? Put on a set of leathers. Heater? I have heated hand grips. Cooler? Ride faster :P Potholes? Just maneuver around them (and I have hit some pretty big ones, it's jarring, but I'm not dead). Sheesh.
You've got to be kidding right? The reasons given were bad because of insert crappy fanboi workaround here?
Proving the point, which you missed, that Chrome users are posting how awesome it is... if you add a hosts file, and a ad-blocking proxy, and don't mind google-syndication and doubleclick tracking on all web sites you visit. And...
The only difference is motorcycles are always going to suck for the majority of people, but some day chrome might be at least passably ok.
I've taken the time to benchmark Chrome 2.0's javascript performance against bleeding edge versions of FireFox, Webkit and Opera. Also compared Chrome 1.0 against FireFox 3.0.5, Safari 3.2.1 and Opera 9.6.3. Enjoy.
Did February just go by 3 times in a row? Did I miss something?
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
Mod me down, but I won't be installing Chrome for about year or so as every time that it installs it just stalls on importing my search settings. I've tried disabling my av, and everything else, and it still doesn't do it. Has anybody else had this problem? I was really excited about Chrome too...Firefox for me until they get the bugs cleared out of it.
"Brian Rakowski, Chrome's product manager, said the company wants to release Chrome for Mac and Linux before the first half of 2009 is up."
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
"But, it's not ads per se that are so evil. If ads are done right, they aren't annoying."
Chromium Developer Documentation quote:
...
"The following lists some types of extensions that we'd like to eventually support:
* Content filtering: Adblock, Flashblock"
Notice that it says, "we'd like" to "eventually" support. Ask yourself, who is "we"? What is the corporate power of the "like" of that person?
I read that as the initial ideas of a very idealistic programmer or program manager who, of course, uses AdBlock Plus and Firefox. I'm guessing it is not Google corporate policy. It was not reviewed by the Google public relations department; the people who work in that department probably have no technical knowledge. It remains to be seen what Google corporate policy will do to the initial design ideas.
The fact that Chrome is open source is not as important as some of those who comment seem to think. Firefox is getting $50,000,000 per year from Google, and look at slow pace of development. For example, the Firefox CPU-hogging bug has improved recently, but now with version 3.05 it has gotten worse.
It costs a lot in time to fork a huge project. A group of very skilled people would have to donate their time. That doesn't always happen.
idlemachine, I have a question for you. Your link to Chromium.org does not have "[chromium.org]" after it. My link to exactly the same web page does. How did you do that?
Oh, now I see. The "[chromium.org]" appears in the comment, but not when you are replying to a comment. Weird.
I am another such person that likes to drag tabs out into new windows. Usually it's because when I've got too many tabs open I hate having to scroll, and I get to multiply the number of tabs easily accessible (IMHO) by tabbing with the OS' task bar at the bottom. I don't usually use more than one monitor unless I have a really big desk because I need the space for things like paper, books and random useless crap.
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
We want the safety of noscript
Y'know I ran noscript for a couple of years. Then I switched to simply denying cookies.
Then I realised:
1) I have never stopped malware from hitting my computer due to the use of NoScript.
2) I'm not ashamed of the websites I go to, therefore I don't care if other people know what I visit.
So I can only ask, what sort of websites are you going to that you'll get malware and/or are ashamed to be known to visit them?
Funnily enough my Dad has just recently switched to Firefox (due to security concerns of IE) while almost immediately I switched away from Firefox to Chrome. Nothing but a coincidence, but it is amusing that whatever browser the "masses" use (and my father is definitely one of them), I seem to migrate to a different browser.
Thanks dude.
As stated in the release notes, Chrome 2.0 (which I'm using at the moment) no longer requires WinHTTP library (Microsoft specific). It now has its own HTTP library that it uses, with the citation that Google Chrome can now share the same library on Windows, Linux, and Mac. That's why it's 2.0.
And apparently, me posting via Chrome 2.0 makes me want to hit the Post Anonymously checkbox for some sadistic reason... :)
Ayup
I use Chrome exclusively at home. The speed over Firefox is simply something that I cannot ignore. Yes, there are ads - for the whiners, there are proxies you can install regardless of your operating system that will strip the ads out, much like Adblock Plus does. I don't personally use them, but I hear they work just fine.
Unfortunately, Chrome is considered one of those "banned" pieces of software where I work. Chrome helps itself to your browsing history, the links you go to, etc. For me at home, this is a moot point - Slashdot, Digg, Woot, and a handful of other sites are what Google finds out about my relatively mundane hyperspace experience. But for work, Chrome does not cut it. Firefox is allowed, so at least I'm not shafted with having to use Internet Explorer.
Ayup
Hurray for faster JavaScript performance - yay.
The majority of what I do when I browse needs solid rendering performance (the cake). The JavaScript engine badness is the icing. WebKit kicks the pants off IE and Firefox's rendering engine. That's enough of a sell for me.
Ayup
Please read about Chromium before posting seriously ignorant posts about Google taking advantage of opensource code and their goals to incorporate Linux and Mac into the fold. It's funny how everyone beats up a less than one year old browser (to the public at least) so much and expects it to deliver the world.
Further, before you start nailing Google for it, Apple's the one that deserves the finger (take your pick) more than anyone else for taking advantage of opensource code.
Ayup
For all you Microsoft haters - Windows and its development libraries are among the most easy to integrate, adapt, extend, etc. Does BitZtream's argument mean that Microsoft is superior? Embedded IE is as simple as dragging a control to your project... yet, I've passed over that one time and time again. :)
Ayup
I ran it in Wine, not only does it not work (it claims it can't write to its profile directory, I didn't try changing it) but it corrupts itself somehow, so it won't work if you run the same binary on Windows (you have to reinstall).
Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but has 1.0 come out of beta yet o_O? I would have thought that if it had, "something from google comes out of beta" would be a front-page story...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Any idea when any version will be released for OS X?
Be as you would have the world become.
They said they would have one by the end of '08 but nothing yet.
See this previous comment: There is an inherent conflict.
Quote: "So I think it comes down to how well Google understands the Streisand effect."
That made me laugh. I think you are right. But I don't think Google top management intended to get themselves into that situation. They were dragged into it by their employees. I'm guessing the situation was allowed to happen due to the technical ignorance of their public relations department.
If any Google top manager reads this, you could hire us to help you. See our web site.
Bear in mind that those tests are rather artificial, and only test certain parts of JavaScript, which probably isn't the main performance bottleneck on most sites anyway. I think you'll see that a browser which seems slower at JS can be faster than most of the other browsers when it comes to real-world performance.