Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases Chrome 2.0 Pre-Beta

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the what-is-too-fast-if-it's-pre-beta dept.

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."

9 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Not a great 2.0 by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  2. Re:profiles vs fast user switching by c.r.o.c.o · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:2.0 but still no non-windows by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  4. Chrome supports a company that sells ads. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. by Quarters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...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.

  5. Re:Finally, a Mac version! by slamb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. OS market share and the often not thought about by similar_name · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.