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.
Does it have AdBlock Plus?
As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.
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?
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.
But I can't live with the invasion of privacy. Sorry :(
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
If you really wanted to do this, you could find it. But, it's really slow under wine anyway.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
Oh great, another post about Chrome. Brace yourself for a wave of 3 general responses:
"No Linux version, so it sucks." - The Jealous Bitch
"It doesn't have (feature from Firefox), I refuse to use it." - The High and Mighty Prick
"I'm all out of tin-foil, you can't trust Google." - The Stallman Worshipers
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
for me, most of the lag I experience is latency related. Once the webpage gets to me, I'm fairly happy if it takes under a few seconds to render.
Then, I'd like a stable connection, and working webpages (ie without bugs).
Next, I'd like more intelligent tabbing: one which tracks my current surfing location as a whole, and bookmarks that. (I'm thinking a tree structure for tabs, with parents and children and all that; and a dynamic bookmark, that would follow me clicks, for when I'm reading online documentation, or any multipage document.)
Ok, after all that, now I'm interested in js performance. Sorry :(
[a question for those who want adblock in this browser. You realize that while Google makes themselves out to be a search and indexing company, that they are really a very high tech advertising company, don't you? For them to implement adblocking, that would undercut their entire business model. If they did it anyway, and left their ads unblocked?, well, that would just be illegal, under antitrust laws.]
Say what you want, but Chrome is my default browser in Vista, and has been since it came out. I don't visit a lot of random sites, and ads aren't that big a deal.
The reason I like Chrome? Its topbar is thinner and more elegant that Firefox's by default. Really, that's it.
Otherwise, I'm your typical nerd. I run ArchLinux, use Firefox+Firebug for development, and I doubt I could get a girlfriend if I tried (I married the girl who dated me in highschool, before she realized what she had done, so that's okay)
Learn about Photography Basics.
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
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
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
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.
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;
This is why I switched to the Chrome beta almost full time.
It doesn't lock up on bad Flash sites, it just kills flash (good riddance), it doesn't fail to load JavaScript on Slashdot (Firefox), it doesn't sit on 1GB of my RAM for no apparent reason (Firefox) and it doesn't crash for no apparent reason (Safari).
You know, the plugin that blocks the endless comments from people asking "does it have Adblock?"
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."
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.
2.0 works by default on Win 7 x64 RC1. No need for the "--in-process-plugins"
From: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxWeeklyNotes
mmoss: release channel setup, first official build
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.
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)
Just got 2.0 and went straight to http://acid3.acidtests.org/: Passed 100/100.
Chrome is a killer browser. Because it is _very_ fast and renders correctly most of the time.
The problem is that they insist on ALSO breaking a lot of UI conventions and inventing their own. That's nice, but one should have the choice to use a "normal" UI. Firefox with the Chrome engine, or Chrome enginge with Firefox UI would be a killer.
A. Not really. However, in order to make it up to you, we are allowing you to download an install a chrome-themed webkit window that doesn't have any of the features, is unstable and does not integrate with your OS at all. Of course, as a precondition you first need to find it through a huge maze of links. Please ignore your OS currently got much better native browsers using webkit anyway...
Q. Is it true Chrome is open source software like some articles said?
A. No, Chrome is not open source software. It does not provide you any of the basic reassurances Open source software actually gives you. To make up for this, we invented Chromium, which you can find after diving to another maze of links and compile yourself. We designed Chromium as just a way to selectively get free code. Please, don't use it as it will give you the basic FOSS freedoms and we do not want that for our browser.
Q. Is it true that other non-IE browsers like Firefox, Opera and Safari are also working on javascript speed making the only important chrome feature worthless?
A. Definitely, as a matter of fact, since some of their new versions actually beat Chrome in memory usage and they have no problem in working in many platforms -integrating correctly with the OS, even windows' themes - , there's really no point in using Chrome unless you want a porn tab or want to follow hype. Ok, to be fair those browsers' new versions do have something like the porn tab and each have always had their fair amount of over-hyped fans... Of course, chrome might still be faster, but this is due to the fact we implemented the javascript VM using as much crazy, unmaintainable windows hack as possible. But don't worry, the only web site in which you might actually notice the difference is one we made in which we placed a bunch of demos designed to stress test javascript...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
FAIL. http://acid3.acidtests.org/
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.
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.