Slashdot Mirror


Google Releases Chrome V2.0

RadiusK writes "Google has released the second major version of the Chrome browser. This version features more speed improvements thanks to a newer version of V8 JavaScript engine and WebKit. JavaScript-heavy web pages will now run about 30% faster. Other new features include form autofill, fullscreen mode, and improved New Tab page. If you're already using Google Chrome, you'll be automatically updated with these new features soon. If you haven't downloaded Google Chrome, you can get the latest version at google.com/chrome." A version for Linux or OS X would be nice.

16 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. I could live with no Adblock/Noscript by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Informative

    But I can't live with the invasion of privacy. Sorry :(

    1. Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript by pwnies · · Score: 4, Informative

      But I can't live with the invasion of privacy. Sorry :(

      So why not get Iron?

  2. Re:No plug in support by zoips · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chrome has plugins (Flash, etc). You mean add-ons.

  3. Re:AdBlock Plus by Laxori666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    just get privoxy. works with anything! http://www.privoxy.org/ .

  4. Re:Windows Only by ogrisel · · Score: 5, Informative

    An experimental (daily snapshot) version for ubuntu is available here: https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa

  5. Re:No plug in support by Marcika · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chrome will have proper extensions in the next 1-2 months. (They already work in the bleeding-edge dev version.) Adblocking extensions already exist (like AdSweep), but it'll take at least half a year to have the comfort and functionality that Adblock for Firefox has (extra blacklisting/whitelisting without editing arcane JavaScript files, easy installation, easy updates, choice of filter lists...).

  6. Re:i would try chrome with wine by viyh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Version 1 was slow, I haven't tried version 2 under wine. I have no motivation to run Chrome unless I can run it in my native OS.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
  7. Chrome without Privacy Issues by basementman · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you concerned about the privacy issues surrounding Google Chrome, there is a virtually identical FOSS alternative that Google can't farm data from. See, http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

  8. Re:Provokes an Interesting Question by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Informative

    If Google, an open source project, sends out all sorts of data that you might consider an invasion of privacy, is the open source community free to fork it?

    Chrome is not an open source project. Chromium is an open source project, and yes, you're free to fork that, as per the terms of the licenses.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  9. Re:AdBlock Plus by Goaway · · Score: 5, Informative

    They specifically listed AdBlock as one of the things they wanted to support through their extension API, which is still in development.

  10. Re:AdBlock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's been done: SRWare Iron.

  11. Re:Windows Only by drizek · · Score: 3, Informative
  12. Re:AdBlock Plus by Photo_Nut · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go check out AdSweep. It works just fine in Chrome. Maybe it's not AdBlock plus, but it works in Chrome without much too fuss.
    http://www.adsweep.org/

  13. Re:AdBlock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except that Privoxy has occasionally murdered my girlfriend's ability to visit some sites on no basis at all. Multiple 403 errors and general page load failures. It's a nice concept, but it really does have its problems since it runs between the network connection and whatever is using it.

  14. Re:Windows Only by hanwen · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am using the Linux version on a daily basis. It is usable, and the speed blows FF3 firmly out of the water, to the point that I don't want to go back to FF. Of course, it does crash every once in a while, and there are many rough edges.

    --

    Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond

  15. Re:Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging b by koiransuklaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Firefox, the laptop killer: 200 CPU hogging bugs [slashdot.org].

    Either you don't know how bug databases work or you're just using the numbers to push an agenda. The important idea to take home here is: The number of reported bugs is a really poor indicator of anything.

    The above is the only thing needed to make your statement useless, but I can point some other problems with it as well: Mozilla has ~50 different products in their bugzilla, you searched them all (including things like websites). Also, the vast majority of the bugs in your list are unconfirmed (from experience I can tell you most of those don't have enough info to reproduce or even to mark them duplicates: I'm guessing there are a _lot_ of scrolling related reports that are actually the same bug).

    Note that I'm not saying that Firefox is efficient or that it doesn't have major problems with e.g. scrolling. I'm telling you to stop bringing that "200 CPU hogging bugs" figure up whenever there is a browser discussion: it has no meaning. Either do your homework and find the actual important bugs or shut up.