Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10
An anonymous reader writes "Google has released version 10 of the Chrome Browser. The update brings hundreds of bug fixes as well as many features that have been available on the Chrome beta and dev channels to users interested in using Chrome's latest builds. Chrome 10 also addresses 23 security vulnerabilities in the WebKit-based browser (easily more than Google has ever fixed before): 15 rated as High, three rated as Medium, and five rated as Low."
Normally I'd throw out a snarky joke like, "You mean the title should've been Google Releases Stable version of Chrome" but as a browser, Chrome's been pretty stable. Flash still makes it fall over from time to time, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Can I finally use RAM for the browser's cache like Firefox to avoid frequent hits on my SSD?
But does the back button work properly? It has been broken for ages on certain sites...
0x or or snor perron?!
I've been using Chromium version 54.712 for weeks now.
Since I'm already running Chrome 10.0.648.127, I'd have to think this is old news.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Now my Beta version of Chrome no longer feels very Beta-like :(
Version 10! Oh man, and here I am feeling like a chump with Firefox 4. I'm waaaay behind on my Internet power level compared to Chrome. I gotta switch before I completely miss out on the Internet awesomeness provided by the much newer Chrome 10! It's 6 additional levels of awesomeness people!
// For those who lack the ability to detect sarcasm - mod me down and I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.
Is GPU accleration disabled for XP in this version?
I was all keen on trying it out, but a build in January just crashed horribly, and a few weeks later it seemed to be disabled all together. I have high hopes for webgl, hopefully the browsers will all push it out the door this year.
Then I'll stick with Firefox, it might get a bit bloated but I have my fingers crossed as hardware improves and they end up making the multithreaded code, it'll at least remain the speed it is now, while retaining good functionality for me.
Yes, I know they are copying the _ridiculous_ tabs on the top UI from chrome, it can be disabled in the default options though, no addon required to do so.
Need my status bar down the bottom too.
FireFox 3 needs only one thing for me.
More speed, just more and more speed - that's it. It's otherwise, EXACTLY what I want in a browser.
Considering that version 8 apparently increased JavaScript performance by 100% over version 7, version 9 increased it by 50% over version version 8 and now version 10 increased it 66% over version 9, I cannot help but wonder when JavaScript performance will become more maxed out.
Obviously not all JavaScript performance tests are created equally, but their gains are quite impressive nonetheless. Wonder what will happen if when they start using the GPU like IE9?
Improved security with malware reporting and disabling outdated plug-ins by default
I've had a grudge on Google due to their plugin status quo, because I've been burned with firefox and now prefer to update plugins manually. Firefox build numbers change little, and plugins can last through a point-zero-point-one update with no problem. Point one changes break them more.
Chrome updates by full one versions every few months and gives me little choice because their extension model is a lot newer and lacking the community behind it we have in the moz extensions portal. Just the other day an extension was saying that it was disabled because its auto-updated version wanted upgraded [snooping?] privileges. I didn't bother; extension privileges changing randomly is the other problem that Firefox doesn't experience.
For example, IIRC extensions like Google adblock and Readability want my web HISTORY and 2 or 3 other seemingly unrelated things in order to complete the install. Granularity of the privilege ring API so that programmers can give us X service is quoted as the problem. Then I find another extension* that wants nothing and gives me the same results without spying. I'd like to see a link detailing all the privileges and whether history is really linked to hiding page elements.
I've disabled Chrome updates altogether after 8.0 on Windows XP, but extensions seem to continue to auto-update and get disabled pending my um, "relicensing" approval. Is there a way to manually manage extensions in Chrome other than just turning them on or off? Can I block privileges by doing some about:config-style hacks to test if the plugin really needs them?
*except for Chrome adblock which has no other substitutes that I know of
Someone needs to write a migration guide.
Starting at FF with adblock plus, firebug, flashblock, ghostery, noscript, RIP remove it permanently, view dependencies, and xmarks.
Ending at google chrome with ....
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
If flash would just crash then sandboxing would at least solve that. But instead it happily gobbles your CPU with runaway rendering crap. The only limit on it now is it is single threaded. Not looking forward to multi-cpu flash.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It will be higher than version 20 in two years because they are increasing their release pace. Let's assume they slow down to their desired six week release pace, then that's almost 8 versions in a single year.
I agree with the sentiment that version numbers are mostly meaningless, but I have grown accustom to only bumping the major numbers on major feature releases. Improving the JavaScript engine to the degree that they have in the past few releases is impressive, but they are the same effort realized over a short span of time.
Now, I do not mind getting frequent releases, but the version number is a bit of a nuisance. However, I do think that has to do with being a developer rather than being a user (as I know non-developers do not even notice). I also thought that was the purpose of their Courgette project was to increase the pace of updates sent to us, making major releases largely less relevant to begin with, except when major new feature releases made it useful (larger code base changes more aligned with "major" releases).
but still useless with out a sidebar like Firefox. Been waiting for years for them to add it, and asked friends that work at google why something so simple is missing, nobody has a good answer.
"Chrome 10 also addresses 23 security vulnerabilities in the WebKit-based browser (easily more than Google has ever fixed before): 15 rated as High, three rated as Medium, and five rated as Low."
pwn2own: 9th, 10th, and 11th of March, 2011
math?, physics?, creators, all concur. probably goes on from there? yet to spot the 'last' digit.
Yesterday I was annoyed that the options page for Chrome wouldn't fit on my netbook's screen. Today I upgrade to Chrome 10 to discover that they made the options screen into a webpage. Google is awesome.
Somehow I imagine if Google paid you $100 for free you'd find a way to criticize them. "But that money was earned under an illegal monopoly; I deserve it more than they do!"
When the "navigational services" spyware is off by default, when third party cookie rejection a feature that is no longer hidden, and when Flashblock is installed by default, let me know. Otherwise it is just another tool for Google to track me.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I gave up using it a long time ago since it was such a mess.
Maybe it's better now. It still lacks most of the stuff & add-ons that FF has which make it such a good web programming/debugging tool.
Most lacking feature in Chrome: multi-row tabs.
In another two years, is it going to be at version 20?
"Google Chrome Vista."
chrome.exe -disk-cache-dir="Z:\CTmp" --disk-cache-size=40000000 --user-data-dir="Z:\CTmp"
The "-disk-cache-dir" &/or -user-data-dir are PROBABLY going to be of interest to you... they were to me @ least!
(Why? Because I move ALL of my webbrowser programs' caches & userdata to my SSD (Gigabyte IRAM, true SSD 4gb, non-FLASH Ram based (DDR-2) - it's very, Very, VERY F A S T, on both reads & writes is why...)
APK
P.S.=> Hope that helps some... but, I can tell you, right now, there are LOADS more commandline switches for Google Chrome, & those I put up may not be the ONLY ones you'd be interested in... You can "GOOGLE" for more though! apk
Now how about we get you fellas a good ass bookmarks manager, huh? Wouldn't that just be dandy?
That's all Google Chrome needs for me now.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2028366&cid=35424874
APK
P.S.=> And, yes, you're correct: I used to do the same with std. mechanical HDD's too, before I was into RamDrives (in software) or SSD's (ramdisk hardware), etc. ...
"Anything to unburden the MAIN '"C:' drive", in other words (I also place my pagefile.sys, logging from apps & the OS, %temp% ops, & %comspec% + Print Spooler locations onto it)... apk
Wow it must be better than IE because IE is only 9 and this one is 10!
MY BROWSER GOES TO 11!
No thanks! I'm gonna wait until the beta version comes out.
"It's not about lifetime concerns... some SSDs have a slow write time which can be very apparent in normal everyday operation. Granted, I only noticed it when I was fooling around and disabled write caching (platters were also slow, but SSD plain locks the PC for the entire write operation it seems...)" - by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday March 08, @05:28PM (#35424230)
Exactly... that's the 1 area that is not "the greatest" on SSD's based on FLASH ram, which is why I opted for a Gigabyte IRAM instead (4gb DDR-2 RAM)... it's good for write activity too!
I place these things onto it (most are read/write in nature):
APK
P.S.=> In the early to mid 1990's, I used to move ALL of that list above's items off of the main C: drive (usual driveletter for the OS & programs bearing HDD), & onto other HDD's (especially when IDE/EIDE circuitry got "smart enough" to handle things independently, per channel)...
Then, later to software-based RamDrives, as they had less latency than std. mechanical HDD's do!
Then, to a CENATEK RocketDrive (PCI 2.2 bus based SSD, 4gb PC-133 SDRAM)...
And lastly/lately, to an even F A S T E R SSD unit, the Gigabyte IRAM (SATA 150 bus, 4gb DDR-2 RAM)... it works! apk
Since Chrome's flash plugin didn't have the goodies that Flash 10.2 gave (really reduced my CPU usage on web video sites, made 1080p flash video usable).
Does Chrome 10 for Mac include the latest Flash hardware acceleration for OSX?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
[firefox user's voice] ... but my extensions didn't break. You sure this is a real upgrade?
Someone looked at the source code - better increment the version.
I sure as shit wouldn't call it stable, it crashes on me 3 to 4 times a day.
For those that want to skip the blogspam, the official Google post with a bunch of information is here.
I was excited at first because it looked like it included a feature I've wanted for ages - Firefox-esque 'master password' for your local password store, but it looks like it's just a locally stored custom passphrase for encrypting your passwords if you're syncing them to Google's online service - more info.
As I have so much invested in my saved online passwords I've been reluctant to make the permanent switch to Chrome for this reason - in the event my laptop gets lost/stolen I don't like the idea of having a huge amount of online stuff readily accessible in my browser. There's an interesting article here that provides some info on how it encrypts locally saved passwords (using a Windows API that encrypts based on your current Windows user + login; how it works on Linux I'm not sure), but I still would feel more comfortable with another 'master password' layer on top of that!
There is no mention if Native Client will be in there, and will be on by default, or at least optionally without the warning message that you are using an unsupported and dangerous function....
UnIike firefox, it's not possibIe to override a website's font settings, this means l'm stuck with whatever idiotic decision the designers chose, which sometimes feeIs like the bad old days of geocities.
ln some circumstances, this means it's not possibIe to teII an upper-case 'I' from a Iower-case 'l'.
(Try viewing this post in firefox and chrome to see what l mean.)
Eh? You put Pagefile.sys, a file containing memory pages that are not currently needed in live RAM, back into RAM? Unless you are doing a lot of paging, you'll save milliseconds at best. If you're doing that much paging, surely more RAM is a better idea? I'm curious what the he'll you're using your machine for :)
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
Be aware that some people are encountering difficulties with chrome 10 when it comes to webGL. It is disabled by default and there does not seem to be a magic command line switch to enable it.
Chrome is the epitomy of browsers spying on you. Why the hell do you people like it so much?
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
"Eh? You put Pagefile.sys, a file containing memory pages that are not currently needed in live RAM, back into RAM?" - by Coriolis (110923) on Wednesday March 09, @05:59AM (#35427964)
Yes, but NOT into SYSTEM RAM... but rather, onto a drive that is nothing but DDR2-RAM chips acting as an "SSD".
APK
P.S.=> You might want to look up what a GIGABYTE IRAM is, & what it looks like... it'd help you understand this isn't a software-based RamDrive, but something much like today's SSD's are, except NOT based on slower write cycles like you see on FLASH RAM based SSD's...
(Though supposedly, Intel &/or OCZ (sandforce controller) have 'faster write cycle' based FLASH units than they used to be, now? Their write speed, I'd wager @ least, is still slower than their read speeds & longevity is a KNOWN "issue" with FLASH based SSD's too)... apk
See subject-line above...
"Why don't you take your 30 gigabyte /etc/hosts file and shove it up your ass?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, @08:13PM (#35425728)
Sounds "kinky", but no: I am NOT interested in your "StRaNgE" practices &/or habits!
APK
P.S.=> Man! Talk about being a TRULY anonymous "coward"... another anonymous troll! apk
Chrome on the Mac used to have a nice, native-looking preferences dialog. The move to an in-tab preferences menu is a move away from native components, which I regard as a backward step. The lack of native components was one of the reasons I stopped using Opera.
Also, when laying out the window bar this time round, Google seem to have copied what Apple did with the Mac App Store and suspended the 'traffic light' buttons in the middle of the bar rather than at the top. It's hideous, and I hope it's not turning into a trend.
...but haven't we learned to always put the word "stable" in quotes?
Mod parent up. This is informative.
At least on Mac, chrome just took a seriously MAJOR nosedive in security. Serious enough that I am switching back to firefox until they fix this problem.
Chrome on Mac stores saved web passwords in Mac's Keychain - which should be perfectly fine. To view the plaintext password of a saved web password in previous versions of chrome, you had to open up Mac's Keychain Access app, select the account, and check the "show password" checkbox - which then requires you to enter your Mac password to reveal the password. You have to do this every time, even if you just uncheck the box then recheck it. Sounds perfect, right?
Not anymore. The new settings tab now allows you to show the plaintext version of any web password, without having to enter your Mac password or a master password like firefox offers. Normally you try not to walk away from your computer without locking it first. But for that odd time when you forget, a coworker has instant access to read all your web passwords.
Google, you've just lost a user due to your lack of concern for security. You should know better than to release pure garbage like this.