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.

Comments

Windows Only

[imamac]

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?

Re:Windows Only

[Goaway]

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?

Re:Windows Only

[blind biker]

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.

Re:Windows Only

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No plug in support

[Goaway]

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

Re:AdBlock Plus

[EggyToast]

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?

Re:No plug in support

[Tubal-Cain]

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.~

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript

[AMSmith42]

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.

No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait forever

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[damaki]

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.