First Look At Chrome 10

I'll wait for Chrome 11... by MrEricSir · 2011-03-10 13:12 · Score: 4, Funny

...because it's 1 version more.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-10 13:46 · Score: 3, Informative

No need to wait. The beta Chrome 11 is out.
In fact, why stop there?
Chrome 12 is available now: http://www.conceivablytech.com/6141/products/google-chrome-12-surfaces
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by Seumas · 2011-03-10 14:43 · Score: 2

Well, since Google says "versions don't matter anymore" and they're planning on releasing every six weeks, they'll be on version 18 by the end of the year.
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-10 15:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark.
Cool story, bro. I'll wait a little bit until I get these same features in Chromium. Won't take long.
It is good this way. You don't care about your privacy then you help Google advertise so you help fund the people doing most of the coding. The rest of us thank you for that. You do care about your privacy then you find yourself in a tiny minority that can be treated like a rounding error if you're an advertiser the size of Google.
This way everyone gets what they want. The world is more ideal than it often seems.
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by shentino · 2011-03-10 18:06 · Score: 2

I give them my information precisely because they are courteous enough to give me the choice to say no. That's why they get my business. Their willingness to go without means I trust them.
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by hairyfeet · 2011-03-10 20:38 · Score: 2

Question: What EXACTLY is the point of this ever faster JavaScript race for anyway?
While I agree with you on privacy (Using Comodo Dragon which is based on Chromium 8) I'm just not getting the "Warp JavaScript" thing since Chromium already loads as fast as my cable will go so is this some "blacker than black" kind of thing or what? Seriously the thing loads as fast as I can click at this point I don't think most of us are gonna notice the 1/50th of a millisecond faster page loading, are we?
Maybe I'm just weird or something but instead of faster I'd like BETTER. Better memory management, less CPU usage, While I give them credit for being better at it than FF (FF 3.6.15 is now unusable on my nettop because of all the memory suckage after a couple of hours of browsing) if they want to improve the browser that would seem like the place to start and not trying to squeeze a few tenths of a second.When I compare the memory usage its just...wow. Try the about:memory trick in Chrome/Chromium to run tests yourself. With just 5 /. pages open and NO ADS we are talking over 200Mb of memory! For 5 pages of just text?
Maybe it is just me, but I'd personally rather have the pages use less memory than load 1/10 of a second faster. I don't want to fall into the "When I was your age" bit but c'mon! 40Mb a page of text with no ads? Am i the only one that thinks that's a little steep?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-03-10 22:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google 10! It spies on you 17% faster!
You are Google's product - not Chrome.
The sell your arse with every click. And you provide them with a means.
A corporation with 600 USD stock, "giving" you a choice? My God! Are the halls of Google clogged with the footsteps of saints?
Such charity.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by MysteriousPreacher · 2011-03-11 00:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll avoid Chrome so long as it insists on hourly checking for updates - even when Chrome isn't running.
Google told me that the only way to uninstall this update thing was to remove all Google applications, and I was happy to oblige.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... by GooberToo · 2011-03-11 01:47 · Score: 2

Question: What EXACTLY is the point of this ever faster JavaScript race for anyway?
Its pretty simple actually. More and more applications are becoming web applications. For Google this is especially important. The more appealing the platform (browser) they can create for developers and users, the more web applications are likely to exist. For Google this directly translates into either revenue or data to be mined, which in turn means revenue.

Try the about:memory trick in Chrome/Chromium to run tests yourself. With just 5 /. pages open and NO ADS we are talking over 200Mb of memory! For 5 pages of just text?
The problem with that analysis is that its completely wrong. It gives an extremely poor impression of what is really going on. The simple fact is, its not, "just text." Web browsers are extremely complex and rather technologically advanced. "Its text", in the same way a compiler, runtime environment + interpreter, GUI toolkit, multiple parsers, network engine (multiple protocols), cache engine, encryption engine, and preference/configuration engine is, "just text." Furthermore, to display that simple text means its established a network connection, pulled the data, checked to see if a cached version was locally available, parsed it, interpreted the HTML, applied it to its own GUI, and rendered it for you the user; and that's the most simplistic of paths.

Version 10 by moberry · 2011-03-10 13:17 · Score: 2

I remember installing Chrome when it first came out and them almost immediately uninstalling it. Either it or Symantec EP had a bug, and the browser window would immediately crash. 9 versions later... these guys have made an absolutely incredible product. I simply don't know what I'd do without my bookmark sync. Their app store needs some work, though, right now it's more of a bookmark store.

Re:Version 10 by mister_playboy · 2011-03-10 15:49 · Score: 2

I heard about Safe-mail here on /. and I've been using it for more than a year and enjoying it.
https://safe-mail.net/

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:Version 10 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-10 15:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Hotmail is certainly on par with Gmail. Hotmail integrates with Windows Live, Skydrive and Messenger. Gmail integrates Google Talk and Google Voice

Waste my Time! by rueger · 2011-03-10 13:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Ack! TFA is a seven or eight page "slideshow" that has pretty much zero actual comment. What a waste.

And I actually really LIKE Chrome (on the PC; Opera on the phone).

--
Three Squirrels

Re:Waste my Time! by Russ1642 · 2011-03-10 13:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Worse. My flipping of the "pages" was interrupted by an ad. I don't know why people want humanoid robots because it's obvious that if they're anything like the electronics we have now they're just going to be rude, annoying, obnoxious, fucking assholes.
Re:Waste my Time! by Asclepius99 · 2011-03-10 14:50 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't know why people want humanoid robots because it's obvious that if they're anything like the electronics we have now they're just going to be rude, annoying, obnoxious, fucking assholes.
So what you're saying is that you're afraid we wouldn't be able to tell them apart from humans?

lol javascript by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-10 13:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Javascript benchmarkS? You mean chrome's own benchmark? Because it's scoring less in SunSpider, and it's certainly not beating IE9 in it. Not that this matters a whole lot, anyway.

Re:lol javascript by quickOnTheUptake · 2011-03-10 15:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not about pageload time. It's about the ability to run JS heavy pages in a non-painful way. It's about running current JS pages faster, and making what is currently too expensive to implement in a browser usable. Just look at the many many JS based tests, games, and demos that are being developed.
I'm not saying that moving computationally heavy things into the browser is a good idea, but it does appear to be where things are headed; Talking about a few ms of pageload time is missing the issue entirely.

--
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive by Dilligent · 2011-03-10 13:30 · Score: 2

huh?
ive been running chrome on ubuntu for ages now and never ever had even one issue with it. im actually running the unstable versions and theyre perfectly fine.
i cant see your problem

What benchmark? by benjymouse · 2011-03-10 13:31 · Score: 5, Informative

TFA is a little thin - it is basically a slideshow.

Still, IE9 beats out Chrome 10 in webkits own sunspider benchmark. On my old rig:
IE9: 348.2ms +/- 0.8%
Chrome: 446.0ms +/- 1.9%

--
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*

Re:What benchmark? by medv4380 · 2011-03-10 14:24 · Score: 2

Pretty much. MS says it was a "dead code" optimization but others who tested it believe it's a bug in their engine that just happens to be working in their favor on that test. In ether case the SunSpider benchmark cant be used to judge IE9. The benchmark isn't intended to test its ability to find dead code and skip over it. Its intended to see how long it takes to run a particular piece of code.
Re:What benchmark? by Zephiris · 2011-03-10 16:53 · Score: 2

TFA uses http://jsbenchmark.celtickane.com/Run.aspx which is a joke.
A useful benchmark is Futuremark's Peacekeeper, really, since it tests a wide variety of common tasks. On my machine, Chrome's the fastest at raw JS, but (by far) slowest at rendering...besides Firefox, which is actually slowest at -every- benchmark -every- time (by a typical margin of 5-10x or more; 4 RC is even slower than everything else on its own benchmarks like Kraken).
Even Opera (with no hardware acceleration at all) beats Chrome at complex graphics and rendering on canvas. Chrome is also the only accelerated browser to get incorrect rendering/redraw on many of the various Canvas acceleration tests/demos.
IE9 is the fastest at rendering complex stuff, while still keeping up with the pack on regular JS, which I dare say is a useful area to be #1 in.
If the browser compiles all of your JS really fast, but then takes a lot of extra time to actually display it, you're still bottlenecking as if you had an incredibly slow JS engine, just at a different part in the average case.
If you do HPC in your web browser via JS, Chrome is definitely the way to go, though.

--

"A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris

If you can make complete junk run real fast by countertrolling · 2011-03-10 13:35 · Score: 3

You might be able to pretend you're not running complete junk. The benchmark should use a heavy Slashdot comment page. If it can load in three seconds, you gotta winner.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive by belgianguy · 2011-03-10 13:35 · Score: 2

Chrome 10.0.648.127 beta and Ubuntu jiving just fine over here...
After a clean install, I installed the stable version on another machine yesterday, through the commandline, even!
http://www.ubuntuupdates.org/ppas/8

Dupe? by supersloshy · 2011-03-10 13:37 · Score: 4, Informative

"Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10"

Is it really this hard for /. editors to use the handy little search function this site provides and see if a story is a dupe? This story was even posted two days ago (albeit on a different website but it's pretty much the same thing).

--
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen

12% faster JavaScript! by shitetaco · 2011-03-10 13:43 · Score: 2

<breathless>JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark.</breathless>

I just came in my pants! 12% faster!

Re:won't load on firefox 4 rc by pookemon · 2011-03-10 13:44 · Score: 2

Perhaps you should try Chrome 10 - it's out now you know.

--
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned by jjohnson · 2011-03-10 14:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Because people like you who turn JavaScript off are tiny minority of users. Almost everyone else actually uses and enjoys it.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Nice Javascript Benchmarking by dmomo · 2011-03-10 14:03 · Score: 2

Written by John Resig for Mozilla:
http://dromaeo.com/

I'm interested in seeing how much DOM manipulation improves w/ Chrome 10.

NoScript? by AnotherScratchMonkey · 2011-03-10 14:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm still waiting for NoScript, so I can use Chrome without being blasted with pop-unders and unwanted noisy video ads. Until then, I'll suffer the slowness of Firefox.

Re:NoScript? by AnotherScratchMonkey · 2011-03-10 14:08 · Score: 2

And here's a thread in the NoScript forum explaining why it's not available yet.
Re:NoScript? by rrohbeck · 2011-03-10 14:12 · Score: 2

Firefox 4 is not bad compared to Chrome.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:NoScript? by jackdub · 2011-03-10 15:00 · Score: 2

You can, however, install AdBlock from the Chrome Extensions page and receive malware resistance +1

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned by schnikies79 · 2011-03-10 14:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Almost everyone uses it. Few enjoy it.

--
Gone!

one example of faster being slower by _Shorty-dammit · 2011-03-10 15:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Firefox is still faster in at least one real-world web app that matters to me. A free GPS smartphone app called Waze lets you edit and make corrections to the map by signing in to your account on their website. Their editor at http://www.waze.com/cartouche/ is where you make these edits, and Firefox is amazingly responsive with this web app. Chrome, on the other hand, has been getting more and more aggravating to use with this app. User input responsiveness has been getting worse and worse ever since Google starting making huge gains in their javascript performance. If I click on a road segment in Firefox it pretty much instantly gets selected and highlighted. There is a very large delay in doing the same thing in Chrome. In Firefox, if I click on some point in the map and drag to move my view of the map, the map starts moving right away. If I do the same in Chrome I get the same glacial delay before it starts moving the map, and every time you drag the mouse before letting go of the mouse button there is the same delay before your movement translates to movement of the map. In fact, any and all user interactions with the app involves an awful lot of delay. And why, I don't know. How come it's perfectly fluid in Firefox, and in Chrome it's an exercise in patience? If Chrome is *that* much faster, why is it an insane amount slower to edit Waze maps with it?

Re:Master Password by BlortHorc · 2011-03-10 16:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Does it have a master password yet? Until then there's no way I can use it.

Though the 7 slides in TFA contain almost no content at all, this was in fact one of the questions answered: yes, they now have a master password.

Re:Master Password by afidel · 2011-03-10 16:44 · Score: 2

On Windows it uses the Windows encryption services so your login password is effectively your master password.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

My accidental benchmark by DusterBar · 2011-03-10 16:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Last year, my daughter and I did a web page that generates mazes because she loves mazes and was amazed that I told her that the computer can be made to make one.

Trying it on IE8, I thought the page was broken. It took almost all day to complete what FF and Safari and Chrome did in seconds.

I then added some instrumentation and other HTML/DOM layouts to test the browsers. You can see this at http://sinz.org/Maze/

By the way, IE9 RC is much better but still an order of magnitude behind Chrome.

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned by jjohnson · 2011-03-10 17:07 · Score: 2

To be clear, I don't work for Google. I meant that the identity of my employer is irrelevent when I've got objective statistics backing me up.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Have they re-introduced frames? by eminencja · 2011-03-10 18:15 · Score: 2

Last time I checked I could not use Chrome for browsing documentation loaded from the local disk. This is the most innocent HTML application imaginable - just a frameset with the navigation panel on the left (TOC, Index, etc.) and the actual contents on the right. And Chrome will not allow one frame (e.g. the TOC) to load a page in another frame because it is a security risk. Duh...

What to do with all that saved time.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-11 06:46 · Score: 2

Awsome !

All those things I'll be able to do during those precious milliseconds... !

Seriously, stop about the stupid javascript speed race, and focus on user experience, protection of privacy.
Ha damn, we are talking about Google... User privacy is their currency.

Well good if it pushes competition to improve, other than that I am not sure what to get out of it

40 of 206 comments (clear)