Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases Chrome V2.0

Posted by timothy on from the windows-only-tut-mir-leid dept.

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.

36 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Windows Only by imamac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A version for Linux or OS X would be nice.

    This is incredibly sad. How hard can it be with their resources to include Mac and Linux?

    1. Re:Windows Only by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes time to develop software. It doesn't matter what resource you have, beyond a certain point, it still takes lots of time.

      And they are working on both, you know. They're open-source. You can go look at them. You can go help out - isn't that what open source advocates tell you to do every time you complain about an open source app?

    2. Re:Windows Only by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google only targets the platform where IE is predominant - that is, Windows. On the other platforms, Firefox or Safari will do the job that Chrome is doing on Windows. Either way, it suits Google's strategy.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Windows Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      isn't that what open source advocates tell you to do every time you complain about an open source app?

      For a volunteer project, yes. Google Chrome is a free, open source, commercial project. It's a professional, corporate-planned, -managed, and -funded product.

      They've now released Windows v2, after originally claiming the Linux version will be ready "as soon as possible" eight months ago during the original hype & release of v1. Google is due for some flack about this. Not to mention the lack of Mac version.

    4. Re:Windows Only by Waccoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Windows is deliberately incompatable with anything else at the source code level. Windows makes it as difficult as possible to be cross-platform.

      While I sympathize, I must ask at what point the world turned into only two major OSes: Windows and UN*X.

      I remember back in the 80's when there were a dozen OSes that were all radically different, and people just sucked it up and wrote software for each platform. Each OS (and the hardware) really stood out and had its own special advantages and quirks. Those were the days of real competition and innovation. These days, if it's not UNIX-ish, it's not "standards compliant" or some crap like that. Nobody is interested in going beyond UNIX. Nobody wants to be different... except for niggling things that make source compile on one Linux distro and not another. Real innovation at the OS level is hard to come by these days.

      Of course Windows is deliberately incompatible with everything else. It's not UNIX. It's pretty much the only non-UNIX OS left outside of the proprietary commercial market. Complaining about it being bad is one thing, but complaining about it being deliberately incompatible is rather silly.

  2. No plug in support by NitroWolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No plug-ins, not usable.

    Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses. Mouse gestures would be nice. Those two things would go really far towards the acceptance of Chrome.

    1. Re:No plug in support by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "By the masses"? You honestly think the masses use Adblock?

    2. Re:No plug in support by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses.

      You only say that because it's how IE became so popular.~

    3. Re:No plug in support by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd consider calling a browser without addins "unusable" a little over dramatic.

      I'd conjecture most users don't even know about addins, and quite a few in addition would consider them as glue-and-bandaids over a browser shortcoming; not that as an inherently virtuous platform "feature."

      Most people will choose Chrome for performance and the Google name that they trust, if they change their browser at all.

      --
      Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    4. Re:No plug in support by ion.simon.c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't click on ads, ever. (Not even AdSense ads.)

      How does my Adblock/NoScript usage hurt the websites that I vist?

    5. Re:No plug in support by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like how you write
            its like modern
      Poetry, sweet
      broken
          And slightly insulting

      This whole adblocking movement is just by a bunch of whiny "kids".
      You all expect free things, but you block the very tiny things that let them be free.
      Totally a childish mentality.

      No. I'm sick of ads, even tasteful ones. How you keep your website up is your problem, not mine. I don't have to go to it, there is a replacement out there, probably even a better site that I haven't found yet. If you charge me for your page, I'd be happy to pay IF (and only if) you make it worth my time and money. If it isn't worth paying for, no one will, and you will either be forced to have something worthwhile, or you will go away. I'm fine with this.

      The web will not die, the internets will survive. If worse comes to worse 10% of the total population will ever figure out how to use an ad-blocker, and this 2% segment of the population is probably not the market your looking for anyways. If I'm so sick of ads that I will go out of my way to find a way to get rid of them, I'm probably a nasty, penny pinching, curmudgeon, and you don't want me to buy your stuff anyways.

      Though I really kind of like the pay-to-play idea for webpages, it would kill a ton of content free crap. But, luckily, that is just my opinion, just like your opinion is only yours, and both of our opinions are equally valid.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    6. Re:No plug in support by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny thing, I was setting up my fathers computer, and threw ad-block on Firefox. He never noticed.

      To me this says that ads aren't as powerful as people think they are. I don't watch much TV, nor browse the web without adblock+, and when I actually do turn on network TV, or use a friends computer (that I didn't set up) I'm shocked. I don't think thats because there is too many ads, but because I haven't been exposed to them for 8 years. To other people, their normal background noise that they subconsciously block.

      Sure, they're going for unconscious exposure, but 99% of them are completely irrelevant to anyone.

      Unless there really is someone out there that thinks drinking crappy domestic beer will make them sexy, and the life of the party. This is the person I fear.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  3. Still waiting... by viyh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd really love to try this hyped up browser but I don't seem to have a Windows machine at my disposal. Throw us (linux/Mac people) a fricken bone, Google.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
    1. Re:Still waiting... by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So a smaller company like Mozilla can magically develop for 3 platforms simultaneously but a much bigger company can't? I call bullshit.

    2. Re:Still waiting... by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first beta of Chrome was released about six months ago. Mozilla's codebase is about 15 years old. You do understand that Mozilla have had a substantial head-start, right?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re:Still waiting... by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.

      That would make sense if they were selling it, but it's a product they are giving away so other than sheer laziness there is no reason they shouldn't have been doing cross-platform work from the start.

  4. Re:AdBlock Plus by EggyToast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed, although this is one reason why Firefox will likely still have a life -- it's unaffiliated with a company that makes money through advertising. Why would Google support a browser add-on that allows you to block their main revenue source?

  5. Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript by AMSmith42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure I buy into "usage tracking is an invasion of privacy" mantra. It seems to me this is a modern day "taking your photograph will steal your soul" sort of superstition. Is the internet not a public place? I'm not sure what kind of privacy people expect while using it.

  6. Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure I buy into "usage tracking is an invasion of privacy" mantra.

    Good for you.

    It seems to me this is a modern day "taking your photograph will steal your soul" sort of superstition.

    Actually it's more like I don't want them collecting data on me that they sell later for money without my express permission.

    Is the internet not a public place? I'm not sure what kind of privacy people expect while using it.

    So then you would be perfectly fine with your bank, for example, having you do transactions over unencrypted connections? I mean the internet is a public place, right?

  7. No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently the Slashdot developers use Chrome on a mighty fast machine; otherwise they'd realize the shame they've brought onto themselves by writing that horribly slow Javascript code and commit hara-kiri.

  8. Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It isn't a superstition. It's a matter of having someone monitoring your actions and collecting your personal information. I cannot see a single reason why a random person should be allowed to monitor your every step and action, let alone a corporation (and foreign for some of us).

    And just for you to know, sometimes corporations do release information they've collected to state officials, with happy developments like imprisoning political activists and dissidents. Do you also consider that to be superstition?

  9. Re:Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging b by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have that problem as well, but then only on the machines where I've installed every add-on I could find. So something tells me it's more my fault than Mozilla's.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  10. Consistency Fail by nemesisrocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do certain companies insist on changing making their applications look inconsistent with the rest of the operating system?

    The main reason I don't use Chrome (and abhor iTunes) is that Ultramon doesn't work with them. And that makes working with dual monitors painful.

    1. Re:Consistency Fail by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do certain companies insist on changing making their applications look inconsistent with the rest of the operating system?

      I don't know about OS X, but on Windows, from Vista on, there isn't really anything to be consistent with to speak of. Office 2007 uses window chrome for its toolbars (which isn't that far from Chrome using it for tab bar), and did you see the screenshots of Expression Blend or VS2010 beta (no, it's not a custom color scheme - they really look like that by default)? Heck, what about IE7+ and Windows Explorer extending the transparency effect (which normally marks the window chrome) to their toolbars / address bars?

  11. Re:AdBlock Plus by swilver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not ditching it before it also has NoScript. I seriously couldn't care less about JavaScript performance, I donot want applications in my browser.

  12. Re:js rendering is not the bottleneck by boshi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google also serves image ads, and I'm pretty sure I've even seen some flash ads, though I could be wrong about the last one.

    I also think you are confused about how google ads work, or adblock works, because it is quite simple in adblock to block all google text ads.

    Abblock for me is necessary, not because I have an aversion to seeing advertisements, but because I block content which distracts me from the page I am reading. I use adblock, but I do not subscribe the massive "catch-all" lists it tries to get me to install. I simply use it as a tool to remove content that annoys me as I browse.

    --
    Blog
  13. I'm always amazed by cries for more adblocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of the worthwhile content on the web is paid for by ads. If all ads are blocked that revenue source will dry up and those sites (including Slashdot, YouTube, Digg, Yahoo, and even Google itself) will become extinct. Then you can enjoy ad free surfing of corporate sites, government sites, paid subscription sites, and sites owned by suckers willing to offer free bandwidth... but at least you won't be bothered by ads.

    1. Re:I'm always amazed by cries for more adblocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh, no, because the Internet is not designed like that.

      You do not pay your ISP for access to the Internet and then ALSO pay for all the content you want. The fact that your content is available to countless millions of people means that you pay and you shut up because it's the best distribution medium that's ever existed in the history of man.

      People offering content grossly overestimate their importance in the grand scheme by requiring payment - although some can get away with this, those are the exception to the rule. Think about it: Before, you had to pay incredible amounts to get such wide notice and distribution. Now you turn around and say people owe you for this wide notice and distribution? That's simply not how it works.

      For every person that has paid-for content, there are generally at least a few other free alternatives. This will continue to be the natural order of things, ads or not. The bandwidth is a natural cost of this distribution medium - if you're running a site and want people to consume your content, you're going to have to foot this bill or provide them with a value that you can't get elsewhere.

  14. Re:Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging b by atmurray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once there are plug-ins for Chrome, Firefox probably will die but then people will load up Chrome with plug-ins and it will go slow too. Then the cycle will continue... Disclaimer: I like both Firefox and Chrome (but I use Safari 4)

  15. Re:AdBlock Plus by ghetto2ivy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's unaffiliated with a company that makes money through advertising

    You do know Google is the biggest sponsor of the Mozilla foundation?

  16. Re:AdBlock Plus by garphik · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't think Chrome will have Adblock+ ever.

    That would mean killing its own business. Thats probably the reason for creating the browser in the first place since firefox was harming its Advertising business with image block and ad block. The improvements on speed are remarkable though, but its not good enough to quit ad block :)

  17. Re:AdBlock Plus - And normal UI! by gnarfel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I actually thought that the Chrome UI was designed pretty decently...when you maximize the program, the title bar becomes the tab bar. Why do you still need a full title bar when the window is maximized? It has a dedicated restore button after all.

    Another thing, the colors in the UI are much more pleasing than the default XP Luna theme. They're much more pastel, much softer. They don't distract from the content, unlike the large full-color icons Firefox uses. In Chrome, the icons are all a darker shade of the overall color for the scheme.

    I guess Chrome seems like a browser that is polished enough for the masses, while still being incredibly fast and powerful enough to deliver the JavaScript heavy pages we've all come to expect.

    --
    Local music(to upstate NY). http://gnarfel.com/ radio.
  18. FAIL! by fulvioc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FAIL. http://acid3.acidtests.org/

  19. Re:Mod Parent Up by damaki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I strongly disagree. Yeah, it's easy to set up but it's a pain in the ass to extend and the default filter sucks. The selling points of adblock plus are the fantastic default filters and the easy click and ad to block list.

    Chrome needs an adblock plus.

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
  20. Re:AdBlock Plus by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Privoxy is GPL and opensource.

    If you're feeling paranoid, and can read C, please feel free to peer-review the code.

    Here, I'll make it easy for you. http://sourceforge.net/projects/ijbswa

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  21. Re:AdBlock Plus by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I never trust anyone who is a big enough tool to write comments on something without even looking into what it is.

    You run privoxy on your own local machine. No packets are being inspected by anyone.