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."

Comments

Not a great 2.0

[alain94040]

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

Re:Not a great 2.0

[Goaway]

Just read the instructions and imagine your grandma giving it a try:

Your grandma isn't going to be using pre-beta software. It's like that because the features is far from complete yet and is thus not enabled by default. It's not going to be like that in the final version.

profiles vs fast user switching

[ecklesweb]

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...

Re:profiles vs fast user switching

[c.r.o.c.o]

The vast majority of people I've seen using windows never log out to switch users. They are automatically logged in as Administrator or whatever admin account was created when windows was installed. Switching user profiles makes perfect sense in a browser.

Forget Greasemonkey...

[thetoadwarrior]

Gimme Firebug....or perhaps that should be ChromeBug.

Adblock?

[randyest]

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!

Re:Adblock?

[Roger W Moore]

That may be true but it might be a bit of a PR disaster if they release a browser which only blocks non-Google ads.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows

[StikyPad]

Boo hoo..

OSS doesn't have to mean using an OSOS. One of the tenets of the GPL is that you're free to use the code for *whatever* purpose you see fit, not solely (or at all) the purpose envisaged by the author. You can't have it both ways.

Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[backdoc]

You make a good point. But, it's not ads per se that are so evil. If ads are done right, they aren't annoying. Look at Google's home page vs. Yahoo's. Google has a history of developing clean unobtrusive interfaces. I wouldn't be too surprised if Google let you install AdBlock or some other ways made browsing tolerable. I have hope.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[jez9999]

So you just want everything for free, right? Google are supposed to eat air or something, and have nothing to work with, because you won't accept their main source of revenue?

Seriously, can't you people think for a second of consequences?

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[SleepingWaterBear]

So you just want everything for free, right? Google are supposed to eat air or something, and have nothing to work with, because you won't accept their main source of revenue?

Nonsense. I'm happy with Google making money off advertising as long as I'm not the one being advertised at. But if a browser doesn't let me avoid the adds, I won't use it.

More generally, I'm really quite grateful to all the consumers out there willing to spend vast quantities of money on things that don't make their lives noticeably better. The surplus from their spending benefits me through websites like Google, and in countless other ways. Also, since they spend so much, they have to work more, and other people working more is clearly of benefit to me. Without the American consumer my life would be much less pleasant.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying you're cool with everyone subsidizing your access to google stuff by ignoring the ads. Really just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I mean what if everyone developed your mentality and decided "Well i'm ok with using Google products for free but no taking the advertising with it". I mean c'mon Google ads (so far) are the least intrusive ads I have really ever seen. I mean have you see the state of Yahoo email or even MSN's mail portal? It's one thing to swear off Google stuff if you aren't cool with the ads but there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to use gmail without the ads i'd suggest maybe paying for their google apps although I am not sure if they have ads or not. If it bothers you that much just pay another provider with straight POP/IMAP or run your own mail server.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[homer_s]

I'm really quite grateful to all the consumers out there willing to spend vast quantities of money on things that don't make their lives noticeably better.

Yeah, wish we were all smart like you.
I mean, I listened to an on the radio, contacted the company and saved my company about 60K in HR expenses - if I were as smart as you, maybe I would've skipped the ad.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[cgenman]

(Post mysteriously disappeared the first time)

Nonsense. I'm happy with Google making money off advertising as long as I'm not the one being advertised at. But if a browser doesn't let me avoid the adds, I won't use it.

We're talking about Ad-Block Plus here. Essentially, you want a browser that will let you strip out the revenue-generating portion of all of the websites that you visit.

You put it in happy terms, but there is something kind of dirty about that. It's like only visiting museums with a suggested donation, and then insulting the suckers who actually donate. Or in this case, you're not willing to have a tiny bar at the top of the websites that you visit, to fund the continued existence of the websites that you visit.

If you're not going to buy something, don't buy something. If you don't like advertising, spend time on portions of the internet that aren't funded by advertising. But don't just get all high-and-mighty about how advertising is for suckers, while posting to a site that wouldn't exist without it with a browser that wouldn't exist without it.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[Quarters]

"...and that its use is immoral."

Using AdBlock is as immoral as going to the bathroom during commercial breaks, thumbing through magazines in a bookstore without buying them, and not reading billboards as you drive by. Unless you have agreed to view ads as part of some subscription service then you don't have to look at them. I pay for my internet connection and I own my computer. I have every right to control what does and doesn't come down my connection and get displayed on my monitor.

Re:Finally, a Mac version!

[slamb]

If you want to see evidence they're working on delivering a Mac version, you might start at the Mac build instructions or the revision history.

OS market share and the often not thought about

[similar_name]

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.