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

[dominator]

They updated the version of WebKit that they're using to one that passes the ACID3 test. That's something.

Re:Not a great 2.0

[cgenman]

I'm rather fond of Opera's solution. All of the text and images are increased in size, but the page remains the same width. That way L/R scrolling is eliminated (unlike PDF's or the iPhone) but all of the elements of the page are larger and more usable.

Google Chrome for Linux! NOT!

[Rick Richardson]

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!"

Re:Copy Firefox source code?

[Bogtha]

Gecko is large and unwieldy compared to Webkit. When Apple decided to build a browser, they hired ex-Mozilla developers, who promptly turned around and used KHTML because it was so much leaner and better designed, despite their extensive experience with Gecko.

It's far from obvious that Firefox is ahead in the technology stakes. It trails in many ways and seems like a far less agile project compared with Webkit and Opera. It does have a few areas where it is ahead, but the downsides seem like an albatross to me.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching

[evanbd]

Hey, I know! We can have the email program have profiles too! And the photo editor, and the instant messaging client! Perhaps one day someone will come up with a unified way to have them synchronize, so that I don't have to create and manage a set of profiles on every application. It could also unify password management, and give each profile its own common place to put files.

Or, I don't know, we could actually use the user system that exists. Poorly reimplementing users in every single program is a horrible idea.

That said, there are uses for profiles that aren't just crippled reimplementations of the user concept. But they have more to do with wanting a different, well, profile of settings for different tasks -- things like the private browsing mode. Or, for example, I use a different Firefox profile for browsing Freenet (there are both performance and security reasons for that).

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.

[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:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

As my full time job I write fake blog entries. I do a bit of other stuff too but that takes most of the time. There are about four dozen blogs I take care of myself, posting one to two entries to each every week. They are mostly reviews of products, services, etc... Though not all, it can't become too clear what the true purpose of those blogs it.

It becomes bad when you realize how many people actually read what you write and take it all as the truth. When single parent mothers comment my blog about family life (thinking I am a father of two young boys) and not realizing that they were recommended all those products because I am paid to recommend them sometimes sucks.

However, I am happy I haven't investing related blogs as a colleague of mine has. "The most horrible thing is when they email me asking how to best finally invest all the money they have been saving for years and I would just like to answer 'I don't have any idea about it.' but instead I give them advice that pretty certainly makes them lose it all."

Well, believe it or not, I still sleep my nights peacefully. You can also choose whether to believe my post or not. Which ever you choose, just remember that not nearly all of the reviews you see online are honest and the most honest ads you are ever likely to see are the clear and annoying ones that you instantly recognize.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're not being a hypocrite by using a spam filter. You had better be reading each and every one emails and assessing the potential benefits of buying fake Viagara and helping Nigerian princes.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads.

[lysergic.acid]

that's an overly simplistic view of advertising.

it's true that most internet ads are hyperlinks to sites where you can directly purchase a product or service. but advertising has been in use long before the advent of the web. the primary purpose of an ad is to promote a product through increased exposure/visibility. a billboard doesn't sell you a product or service directly; you can't click on magazine or newspaper ads; nor do TV commercials take you to a retailer where you can purchase the advertised product. but companies still spend billions of dollars every year on marketing and advertising to passively promote their products. a superbowl ad that won't result in any click-through sales is still worth far more money than a linked banner ad that actually takes people to a retail site. that's because advertising/marketing is all about mind share & branding. it's about influencing consumers subconsciously.

advertising is a form of passive persuasion. we're bombarded with ads everyday, and most people claim that this has absolutely no effect on them. but the numbers tell a completely different story. that's what makes advertising so insidious. it has practically become a science that can influence consumers in consistently predictable ways by exploiting known psychological quirks and human behavioral patterns. yet this unconscious influence makes us think that we're the ones who are choosing to buy this product or use that service. free will is just an illusion. oftentimes we make subconscious decisions due to external influences and then rationalize the decision only after the choice has been made, giving us the impression that it was a spontaneous choice made autonomously. this is demonstrated most clearly in a study conducted on the effect that music has on wine shoppers.

basically, some researchers played different types of music at a supermarket on different days and found that this had a noticeable influence on the purchase decisions of the wine shoppers--French music sold French wine and German music sold German wine. despite the indisputable statistical correlation, only 1 in 44 surveyed customers acknowledged the store's ambient music as having an influence on their wine choice. this shows that people often fail to realize why they make their purchases, and will even make up reasons for "choosing" a particular product when in reality it was chosen for them by external influences.

so it's not just clickthroughs that advertisers are after. even if nobody clicks on the ads on a webpage, they are still fulfilling their purpose and influencing future purchase decisions. no one is immune to advertising, and especially not if you don't even recognize the power they have over you. time and time again studies have shown that consumers make purchase decisions based on irrational impulses instilled through advertising--like equating large vehicles to safety, or purchasing familiar brands that are a poorer value.