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.

16 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 ogrisel · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    2. 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.

    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 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

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

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

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

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

  4. 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.
  5. 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.~

  6. 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

    --
    A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
  7. 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}}
  8. Re:No plug in support by Drafell · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:AdBlock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fork your git branch

    Please watch your language.

  10. 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.

  11. 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/

  12. 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!!!