Google's new browser: Google Chrome

[BlindToSound]

So today Google released it's new browser: Google Chrome beta!

Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer, and easier.

I'm typing this in Chrome right now as we speak.

Cons:
-- History - You don't have a drop-down menu of your web history.
-- Text-highlighting - It's much harder to highlight text because it copies more than just the text you want.
-- Scrolling - It seems when you scroll that you skip about 4-5 lines which makes it annoying to read things because you keep having to go back.

Pros:
-- Simplistic design - The design and layout of the browser is very easy to navigate, and it's very easy on your eyes.
-- Item transfer - From your default browser, it gives you the choice if you want to transfer your bookmarks, history, etcetera.
-- Multiple page startup - Google Chrome allows you to have multiple pages open when it starts up!

Download: Google Chrom Beta

[BlindToSound]

I also forgot to mention that it scored a 79 / 100 on the Acid 3 test.

[hesselbom]

There's some really importing things that you forgot to mention. Such as independent processes for each tab. Makes it so that one tab can't slow down the whole browser.

About scrolling: You can setup how much to scroll in your Control Panel (if using Windows), it has nothing to do with the browser.

Text-highlightning: Not sure what you're on about here. It highlights what I want it to...

Google actually made a cool 37 page comic about it's different features. Worth reading!

[BlindToSound]

At 9/2/08 09:23 PM, hesselbom wrote: There's some really importing things that you forgot to mention. Such as independent processes for each tab. Makes it so that one tab can't slow down the whole browser.

I noticed the multiple processes for Chrome. I got very confused about that. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

About scrolling: You can setup how much to scroll in your Control Panel (if using Windows), it has nothing to do with the browser.

Where do you see this?

Text-highlightning: Not sure what you're on about here. It highlights what I want it to...

The text-highlighting is a LOT more sensitive than Firefox's or Internet Explorer. I don't like that.

I also noticed it loads pages a LOT faster.

[hesselbom]

At 9/2/08 09:27 PM, BlindToSound wrote: Where do you see this?

If on Windows: Start > Control Panel > Mouse > Wheel > "The following number of lines at a time:"

The text-highlighting is a LOT more sensitive than Firefox's or Internet Explorer. I don't like that.

I'm still not following you. I find it no different than in Firefox.

But yeah, as far as I have seen it's a really great browser. However, the Chrome spell-checker thinks "Google" is spelled wrong, heh.

[Jessii]

At 9/2/08 09:27 PM, BlindToSound wrote: Where do you see this?

In printers and other hardware, wheel tab, you can set the amount of lines.

[DanielZ]

Also, you forgot another con- it's only for Windows as of now. I wouldn't even consider using it unless they made it for Mac, as I really don't feel like booting up Parallels every time I want to use the internet... Also, there's not too many web developer tools in Google Chrome. What I really miss in Chrome and most browsers (except Firefox) is the "View Background Image" option in the right click context menu.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

Well, from what I've read, it appears to have a relatively well performing javascript engine. At the same time, though, I can't help but groan at the prospect of yet another browser to test things against. Most of my work is server-side at this point in time, though.

[blindnil]

seems very fast and interesting....I like it

[elbekko]

At 9/2/08 10:51 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: At the same time, though, I can't help but groan at the prospect of yet another browser to test things against.

It uses Webkit, AKA Safari. If it works in Safari, it'll work in Chrome.

[Wonderful]

I like it very much. Needs more add-ons and skins though.

[BoneIdol]

At 9/3/08 04:49 AM, elbekko wrote: It uses Webkit, AKA Safari. If it works in Safari, it'll work in Chrome.

Only it lacks the mac font rendering. This is a bonus in my opinion; 99% of the internet is typographically tweaked for windows font rendering.

[Jon-86]

I'm sticking with Opera. Its had all the features offered by chrome for a while. With the exception of being able to search your history in the URL bar. I dont think it offers anythinig new. Also when you open a new tab the new "tab search" feature is a complete rip-off from Operas speed-dial page.

The underlying arcitecture is quite good though. And that its now all open source. It wont make me change. But thats the biggest thing in its favour. And if it dosnt already I dont see why Opera wont be able to add some of these components like V8....

That could have uses in other places also!

[wreckages]

i really like chrome, i'm using it as my default for a while, see how things go, i'd also like to add that the skin looks a lot better in vista when you have aero/transparency enabled.

[DanielZ]

At 9/3/08 07:01 AM, BoneIdol wrote:

At 9/3/08 04:49 AM, elbekko wrote: It uses Webkit, AKA Safari. If it works in Safari, it'll work in Chrome.

Only it lacks the mac font rendering. This is a bonus in my opinion; 99% of the internet is typographically tweaked for windows font rendering.

Hmmm... I guess I'm part of the 1% that tweaks for Mac?

I like smoothed text. It's so... smooth...

[DFox]

Researchers have already found a slew of security flaws, some that can be very dangerous.

To me, this seems like "Google makes it, so it has to be the best". I don't really see the attraction to it. I tried it, and it's a nice little browser.

I'm failing to see where it tops Firefox. The only thing that Chrome offers right now that Firefox doesn't is a bunch of security flaws.

[DearonElensar]

And there are some problems in it's default settings

[DFox]

At 9/3/08 05:19 PM, DearonElensar wrote: And there are some problems in it's default settings

That's embarrassing.

Call me crazy, but I can easily see this browser miserably flopping.

When Google betrays Mozilla to release their own web browser, OK, I can live with it, but that browser better be revolutionary and offer some features that I look at and say "Wow, Google really hit it on the nose this time".

But to double-cross Mozilla to offer a browser with an anemic interface and feature-set?? Sorry, I don't get it.

I'm in college now, and when I went into class this morning, and the professor is using Chrome, and so are a few other students and I'm thinking like "wow, do these people even think for themselves or is everything Google produces the gold standard automatically?" And then I thought "Maybe I'm missing that revolutionary feature, maybe Google Chrome gets me my egg McBagel in the morning. "

And yeah, I know, Chrome offers a faster JavaScript engine. To me, that more or less it's big "feature" is a complete cop-out. Was anyone sitting at their computers last week thinking "I love Firefox, but it just doesn't execute that client-side JavaScript fast enough. I need an alternative ASAP." I know I wasn't...

The wrap it up, to me, it seems like the heads at Google came together and said well, we want to make a web browser, but we can't think of anything that would blow people's minds. Instead, let's go with the anemic interface and feature set and advertise this FAST JavaScript engine that .01% of the population will even know what it is. Sorry, Google completely missed the mark on this one. And with that pathetic license that Dearon linked to, I guess now you have to worry about the security flaws and Google using your stuff at will.

Google did accomplish 1 thing though: They made Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, and pretty much every other browser seem like they came here from the year 2050.

[Claxor]

At 9/3/08 05:37 PM, DFox wrote: Google did accomplish 1 thing though: They made Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, and pretty much every other browser seem like they came here from the year 2050.

Which was, of course, their secret agenda all along..

[elbekko]

Yeah, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Go read the damn comic.

[DFox]

Oh god, some more Google gospel. The comic says browsers need to be featureless so they need to be featureless. Because Firefox is so JAMMED with unnecessary features... No it isn't. Firefox has just the right amount of things that you need and make browsing effective. Chrome looks like an outstanding browser if it was the year 1995 and marquees are still cool.

For god sakes, features like the Chrome SPELL CHECKER don't even stack up to Firefox's. Google couldn't come up with any way to make bookmarks even slightly better?

What a joke that people actually buy this stuff. Google should most certainly release a bare-bone operating system because all their fanboys will blindly use it. It would be irresponsible to their shareholders not to take advantage of their "can do no wrong status".

[DFox]

Also, to make it clear, I don't WANT to dislike Google Chrome. When I first installed it, I WANTED to like it. But it's just impossible to do that if you're looking for anything more than the definition of "ordinary" browser. I was hoping I would find something that would make me say "OK, that's it, now I have to use this browser"... nothing.

[elbekko]

Urgh. I hoped your idiocy didn't reach this far, but apparently it does.

Fine, I'll explain. Google Chrome is fundamentally different from other browsers in that it uses multiple processes. Each tab has its own process, making the browser overall faster and more stable. There are alot less issues with memory management, since all memory that tab might've consumed is fully destroyed when the tab process is destroyed.
The JS engine is significantly faster, and also runs in its own process. Same for plugins. So one thing taking a while won't lock up the rest.
Most of the browser also uses a very low permission level, making it much more secure than most other browsers. As they explained at length in the comic (which you obviously either didn't read or failed to grasp, wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter really), the only exception for this are plugins, that most don't run with those very low permissions.

I do wonder where you got your brain though, since you obviously fail to grasp the meaning of the term 'beta software.' Basically, that means that it's functional, it has a basic UI that's usable, still has a fair amount of bugs and unfinished edges, but provides a very nice proof of concept.
You were fucking whining about a spell checker. This 1) shows your intelligence, since you can't grasp the spelling of the English language, and 2) shows that you have no idea what beta software is.

No, I do not worship Google. But it is a simple fact that they've made a quality product under the hood. That you don't agree with the interface is your problem, and certainly shouldn't be a factor, especially not in beta software. Alot of browsers can benefit from the technology in Chrome, and they're fully allowed to too.

[DFox]

Wow elbekko, calm down with the personal insults. You're letting your Google fandom get in the way of rational thinking.

That's fine if it's a proof of concept. Then there shouldn't be any reason for Google to put it on the front page of GOOGLE, "Download Google's new browser". That's what you do with "proof of concepts" and "beta" software? Sounds irresponsible to me. Check that, sounds more like a very naive, premature attempt at taking over the browser market. When you see software advertised on the homepage of the most used search engine ever, you might tend to thing it's more than a "proof of concept" with tons of bugs and security holes.

And if you're going to tout security, security, security, please, make sure there aren't obvious security wholes in the browser that are found in the first 10 hours of the release. Calling that hypocritical would be an understatement.

Also, be careful, your posts are now property of Google and can be used at their will because they provided the service for you to post them.

Anyway, I'm surprised at you. Such a hostile post from someone who is usually intelligent. Google really does have a dedicated fanbase, I'll admit that. The same fanbase that writes Microsoft with the "$". We need to come up with one of those for Google, and quickly, because again, I'm sure their operating system will be here before we know it.

[elbekko]

I'm just very, very sick of the idiocy of people like you.

So, they weren't allowed to release and advertise things like Gmail and Google Calendar when those came out before? Mind you, these are still in beta. They had alot of bugs when they started out, yet nobody made this huge a fuss. They appreciated it.

And once again, you failed to grasp the concept of beta software. Yes, it has bugs. And even, *gasp*, in the security precautions. Mymy. Because that's unheard of.

[DearonElensar]

O wait what, you mean that those terms don't actually apply to the browser but ended up in there because Google was trying to keep things simple for people? IT ISN'T POSSIBLE
Why Google is not the next best thing after bread it most definitely succeed at it's goals so your crap is flamebait at best.

[wreckages]

At 9/3/08 05:19 PM, DearonElensar wrote: And there are some problems in it's default settings

taken from psychogoldfish here

you guys are morons... the EULA is being taken out of contex

The point is for data collection to make the product better and promote it's features. It doesn't matter what it says in the fine print, intellectual property rights can't be stripped away by using their browser, and I guarantee they aren't uploading copies of your flash and shit when you submit to NG.

Chrome is probably the single best browser on the market today... super fast, stable, efficient and it plays flash games at the best speeds I have ever seen.

But if you guys wanna be paranoid over all these pots about it, you go ahead... you probably were scared of Y2K as well

[DearonElensar]

At 9/3/08 07:50 PM, wreckages wrote: Stuff

I always dislike it when for some reason or anther *all* my data is being sent to someone else (in this case whatever i enter to whatever search provider i choose).
But it's definitely not enough to not use Chrome due to the fact that you can just choose to turn it off.

[thoughtpolice]

First off, there are some misconceptions going around.

Chrome is beta software. It is meant to be stress tested, investigated, and Google wants you to break Chrome. That's the entire point of beta software - it's meant to be tested. Lots of open source projects announce when betas are available, because they want people to test it so they can make the overall software better. Beta software is expected to have bugs and problems.

I didn't think so. You would if you were trying to be fair, however.

Second, linking to it on their home page is in no way irresponsible - they get it spread to the most amount of people in the most minimal amount of time. 95% of the people who use google only search with it. They don't check code.google.org, if you want videos you're probably going to use youtube since they now own it, and you probably won't check google's research pages.

'Irresponsible' would them saying "This browser has major security holes we are aware of that will result in your house getting bombed, children getting raped and identity stolen. But use it anyway, even though it protects you from nothing!" But they're not saying that. They're saying this is beta software and that it might have bugs and problems which could inhibit your browsing experience. If you download and choose to use it, it will help us create a better version of the software which will be officially released.

Are you going to bitch to the people involved in all the projects which ever released and announced a beta version of their software about how irresponsible they are?

What's that?
No?
You're not?

I didn't think so.

Most people just use google for searches, so if they're not supposed to put a link to their software on their home page - which is where all that activity happens - how the fuck are people going to even know it exists?

Third, Chrome is fundamentally different from other browsers. The V8 Javascript engine is one part of that, but generally not much time in loading an actual webpage goes into Javascript, and plus you have to factor in network latency which is almost always the biggest bottleneck in these types of tests (especially with AJAX.) The other part of it is the fact that there is one process per tab, meaning your entire browsing session does not get screwed in the ass due to a crazy java or flash plugin. IE8 also works this way.

Next, user interface design is a very delicate issue and you can't please everybody. That's just the fact. So I'm sorry if you have to get on your period when some piece of software's interface does not exactly abide by all your standards and expectations. Other people obviously feel different. Calling it 'anemic' as if having a simple interface is bad is completely stupid. Many times in user interface design, I have easily found that less is more. Simple, clear interfaces are better than intrusive, more complicated ones in almost all situations (which is why programmers should never fucking design user interfaces. That's why interface designers are there.)
Does this mean that Firefox or Opera have bad user interfaces? No. But just because the Chrome interface is more minimal doesn't mean it's worse.

Judging anybody who uses Chrome as a 'google fanboy' is also so unfair it's fucking pathetic. Calling anybody who defends chrome a fanboy is also incredibly childish and stupid. Calling anybody who things chrome is cool, useful or somewhat innovative a bandwagon-jumping son of a bitch is, again, stupid and pathetic.

I think Chrome is in some ways innovative and cool. But I don't use it (no OS X builds as of yet.) I am also of the opinion that all web browsers are complete and utter shit. Yes, this includes the all-coveted Firefox, as well as Opera, Safari, IE8 (although from the looks of it IE8 will suck a bit less,) whatever. They all suck. Some just suck less. Some suck less in certain ways, some suck badly in others. Chrome sucks less in a few ways fundamentally I think - process-per-tab is an example and that can go for IE8 as well. It's bound to have problems, and you're not obligated to love it or use it because it's a work of Google.

[DearonElensar]

At 9/3/08 10:50 PM, thoughtpolice wrote: Third, Chrome is fundamentally different from other browsers. The V8 Javascript engine is one part of that.

I think V8 is actually one of the major reasons why they made Chrome.
Many of their webapps (Gmail and Google Docs for example) are very Javascript heavy so this browser is much much better when it comes to their apps then a general browser (Firefox or Opera for example).
Of course the whole 1 process per page thing also comes into play here since you can surf without being afraid of crashing your browser and losing your Google Doc session.

But of course, as the Mozilla team also said, Chrome is simply everything Google wants in a browser.
Sure their stuff works in all browsers but they clearly found that it didn't work good enough so they simply made a new browser that does things a whole lot better for what they want a browser to do then the current crop (and yes, this means there will probably not be extensions and all those things since they have no real use for them)
And the brilliant thing is is that they build it on an existing rendering engine so web designers are saved from more work and they open sourced the whole thing so they will most likely see the things they care about (faster Javascript rendering) end up in other browsers, a classic win win situation in my opinion :)