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.

40 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. AdBlock Plus by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it have AdBlock Plus?

    As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.

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

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

    2. 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?

    3. Re:AdBlock Plus by chrysalis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chromium is opensource.

      Fork your git branch
      Rewrite AdBlock plus for Chromium ...
      ??? ...
      Profit !

      --
      {{.sig}}
    4. Re:AdBlock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fork your git branch

      Please watch your language.

    5. 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.

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

      It's been done: SRWare Iron.

    7. 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/

  2. 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 ogrisel · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Windows Only by rikkitikki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used to ask the same question. I now work for a small startup. Most of us develop on Linux, a couple on Windows, and a couple on Mac. If we could afford to do a linux-only version, we would. But in order to have any kind of marketshare on the desktop, we need to output a Windows version.

      The mac and linux versions mostly "just work" and simply need testing. But about a month before release, the entire team needs to stop what they're doing and get the Windows version fully working and tested. Windows development is a resource hog (in terms of people). In some ways, Windows is just different, but it seems in many ways, Windows is deliberately incompatable with anything else at the source code level. Windows makes it as difficult as possible to be cross-platform.

      As a result, we get the Windows version out and working before we have time to test the Linux and Mac versions. It kinda sucks to spend that much time and resources on a Windows version. It's either that, or re-route our development resources to Windows-only and ignore the other platforms. Of course, we don't want to do that.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:Windows Only by KasperMeerts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I doubt it. Have you looked at the Chrome code? It's littered with hard-coded windows-only bullshit. It's just very unelegantly designed, that's why it's taking so long.

      --
      As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
    7. 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

    8. Re:Windows Only by amorsen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it.

      Your issue with Firefox probably is actually with Pango. IMHO, Pango renders text far more beautifully than any version of Windows does, but it IS a lot slower. You used to be able to disable Pango when building Firefox; I'm not sure whether that is still possible.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  3. 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: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.

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

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

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

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

  6. Re:No plug in support by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Way ahead of you.

    http://adsweep.org/

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  7. 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.~

  8. Here we go again by Jamie's+Nightmare · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  9. js rendering is not the bottleneck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.]

  10. 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...).

  11. I still prefer Chrome. by lwsimon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  12. 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

  13. Re:No plug in support by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've got adblock plus, but I dont' go to masses anymore. Too preachy. I like to limit the ability of other people to tell me what to do.

  14. Re:No plug in support by chrysalis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the masses were blocking ads, what would happen?

    1) The web would become a marvelous place without any ad anywhere.
    2) Tons of web site would just close
    3) Tons of web site would require you to pay per view
    4) New, more intrusive, difficult to block, kind of ads would go mainstream. (similar to spam filters vs spammers).

    To tell the truth, 1) would only happen in a fairy tale.

    --
    {{.sig}}
  15. Re:No plug in support by Drafell · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's called GodBlock Plus, or atheism, by the masses.

  16. 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.

  17. Re:No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait fore by glennpratt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

  18. Does it have "No-Adblock"-Block? by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know, the plugin that blocks the endless comments from people asking "does it have Adblock?"

  19. Re:No plug in support by Itninja · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think he meant "by them asses". When you read it that way it makes WAY more sense.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  20. Passes Acid3 by WebManWalking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just got 2.0 and went straight to http://acid3.acidtests.org/: Passed 100/100.

  21. Re:AdBlock Plus - And normal UI! by Allicorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On Windows, Chrome's window decorations are always in a horrible bubbly Fisher-Price style that somewhat mirrors the default XP/Vista themes. The application does not honor system-wide windowing theme settings. This is stupid. You've kinda come to expect media players to do this (it's still annoying, but it's become the accepted convention) but serious applications like a browser that I'm going to be looking at all day should not lock themselves out of the OS's visual theme system. I'm stuck with one app which seems like an alien on my system because all the colors and widgets are completely different to everything else. It's as bad as bloody Apple!

    Another thing I suspect the GP is talking about is the menu. Oh, I mean the toolbar button. Or do I mean menu? Who knows. Take any normal application on Windows that has a menu - press ALT. Now you can navigate the menu option with the cursors or with menu shortcut keys. Google decided that I didn't need this ability and hacked out the well understood, standard concept menu and replaced it with a little popup off of two toolbar buttons. And for a cherry on top, put those icons at the opposite side of the window from where you'd go hunting for a missing menu anyway.

    Ooo lessee... how about allowing the application's controls (in this case, the tab bar) to impinge upon the applications titlebar and moving the apps title from the left to the right. This is just more of the kind of utterly pointless "gloatware" interface decisions that often characterises Apple software on Windows. "Our scrap of software is the single most important thing you'll ever use on your computer so - obviously - it's important that it break established visual style and usage conventions to remind you how important is is!". Gloatware.

    These seem like trivial things but interface conventions are of huge value to users who lack confidence in front of a computer. Once you've learned that there's always a Menu and it always has File, Edit, View and Help on it - you've got a huge head-start on getting to know any new bit of software.

    There are other things that annoy me about Chrome like that stupid is-it-or-isn't-it-status-bar; curiously referring to its SSL preferences as "computer-wide" in the options page (it's going to change SSL behaviour across all apps and OS?); Bookmark interface; yadda yadda AdBlock, NoScript, yadda.

    I feel better now XD

    --
    OMG!!! Ponies!!!
  22. FAQ by Vexorian · · Score: 4, Funny
    Q. Will chrome ever work in OS/X / Linux / *BSD like real browsers tend to do?

    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"
  23. 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.