Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Amazing Browser Experiments

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the yeah-its-that-kind-of-day dept.

234

Barence writes "On the day that Microsoft launches Internet Explorer 8, Google has unveiled a new site that showcases the Javascript performance of its Chrome browser. Called Chrome Experiments, the site includes 19 extraordinary animated games and widgets that push the browser to its limits. One experiment, called Browser Ball allows you to 'throw' a bouncing ball from one browser window to the next. Google Gravity, on the other hand, collapses the normal Google homepage into a pile at the bottom of the screen. However, you can still enter search terms into the box and watch the results drop from the top of the browser window."

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obvious user question (4, Funny)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254743)

Why does this frecking site do not work in ie6...

Re:Obvious user question (2, Informative)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254839)

Yeah, they should really consider folk like us that are forced to use IE6 because of "corporate policy"; specifically, corporate policy to be as dumb as possible in all things.

Re:Obvious user question (5, Informative)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254919)

it is a "corporate policy" because most of the HR software works only in IE6, and the reason most of the HR software works only in IE6 is because the HR departments demand IE6 compatibility... get where this one is going?

Re:Obvious user question (2, Informative)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254967)

Problem is that not even the end users are the problem anymore it is the corporations which probably will use ie until 2100...

Anyway the good news is, that the market share of this dreck is dropping at the same rate as ie5.5 used to drop when ie6 came out so expect in about 6-8 months the significance of ie6 down to levels where you can really start to ignore it!
The downside is, that most of those now migrating will migrate to ie7 which is also aweful... but at least css positioning works somewhat better, and png works in most cases as expected but not all!

Re:Obvious user question (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255131)

It's corporate policy because any change would take longer than the heat death of the universe. We will still be using IE6 when the rest of us have the net plugged directly into our brains.

Re:Obvious user question (4, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254989)

Portable Firefox works on my locked down WinXP corp PC. [portableapps.com]

Re:Obvious user question (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255409)

They thought of that. My computer is scanned every night for executable files and if any are found I get reported. They are smart in a very dumb way.

Re:Obvious user question (3, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255515)

Thumb drive.

Re:Obvious user question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255037)

Nah, fuck you guys seriously,

If you want to actually do something, you can go home and do it in firefox.

Corporate policy isn't going to hold back the web.

Re:Obvious user question (2, Funny)

Hasney (980180) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254877)

It worked for me! However, the ball looked a lot like a blue lowercase e and the second browser looked like a trashcan....

Re:Obvious user question (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255031)

"YOUR BROWSER CANNOT RUN THIS EXPERIMENT! It requires the use of the <canvas> tag, which your browser does not support. Please try viewing it with a browser like Chrome, Firefox or Safari."

God I hate working here. One IT person for every 10 proper workers - that can't be right. :p

Re:Obvious user question (-1, Flamebait)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255057)

Why does this frecking site do not work in ie6...

Are you kidding? TFA doesn't even work in Firefox 3! Try clicking on one of the thumbnail images. It just takes you right to the top of the page. Nice job, writing an article critical of IE in IE-only code.

Re:Obvious user question (1)

Tyr_7BE (461429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255293)

Works great for me in FF3. I played with browser ball, monster, and twitch and all of them work like a champ. Check your installation. Make sure you have javascript on.

Re:Obvious user question (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255933)

I meant the PCpro article is designed for IE. The experiments work fine.

Re:Obvious user question (1)

Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255333)

I clicked on one of the thumbnails and it opens the picture in a new tab. This is in 3.0.7

Re:Obvious user question (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255949)

Maybe one of my extensions is interfering, then. Thanks.

Re:Obvious user question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255121)

Then the user will look at the message at the top of the page, that the designer put there (that's me), saying:

Hello, you're using an outdated version of Internet Explorer: some elements of this Web site will not be displayed correctly.

We would be very appreciative if you switched to a more standards compliant browser, such as Opera [opera.com] or Firefox [getfirefox.com] . Whilst we support any modern browser, we think you'll probably like one of those best.

If it's IT policy holding you back. Tough shit. The Internet is not beholden to your corporation and we need to move on, and away, from the awful rendering engine in IE6.

Re:Obvious user question (1)

patch0 (1339585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255719)

I've done the same for sites I have designed, I just don't bother to support IE6 any more. I usually leave a nice little tag that only displays in IE6 telling them to join 2004 with the rest of us. If enough people do things like this, then hopefully a critical mass can be reached whereby even the morons decide IE6 is a waste of time...

Re:Obvious user question (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255959)

Well i tried that with my last site, I gave IE6 users a reduced view on the content and a fair warning that they should upgrade. It ended with a fair warning that I should remove the warning it looks bad...
Ok I removed it the IE users now just get a plain xhtml view with a small number of style fixes :-)
Probably the way to go in the long run, serve the ie the plain html version with some css hacks and the rest the full content!

Re:Obvious user question (3, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255855)

Why does this frecking site do not work in ie6...

It does work, just different, just as Microsoft intended.

Re:Obvious user question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27256045)

Why does this site not work at all? And on that note, is Google being DDoS'd? google.com has been retardedly slow all day...

2nd post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27254757)

2nd post!

Works in Safari too (4, Informative)

Wabin (600045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254759)

Most of these work in Safari4, and some even on the iPhone. This kind of stuff, written entirely in HTML5 and javascript, is one of the things Apple is hoping will make the lack of flash on the iPhone a moot point.

Re:Works in Safari too (3, Informative)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254803)

Yeah, the gravity thing seems to work on Firefox 3 as well. Most of these things should work with a browser that is relatively standards compliant.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254849)

they *work* on my work PC, but there's hiccups now and then. Then again this machine is a piece of crap, so for all I know it's a memory issue, not a javascript/firefox defeciency

Re:Works in Safari too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255267)

Apple do not make PCs.

Re:Works in Safari too (2, Informative)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255063)

No it doesn't. On FF 3.0.7 the page elements fall to the bottom, but you can't do anything with them. On Chrome once they've fallen you can click an element and "throw" it across the window by dragging & then releasing the mouse button.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

camg188 (932324) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255501)

Yeah, the mouse is retaining it's original functionality, eg. if you click on a link, that link is loaded or if you click and drag, text is selected.

Re:Works in Safari too (3, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255955)

we've been playing with that one on Safari and Chrome side-=by-side. Chrome's JS is significantly faster, but it does have a bug in that text (inside the google search bar) only appears if the bar is level. On Safari it appears when the bar is at an angle.

Performance: FF is acceptable, Safari is worse so some are ok, some are not, Couldn't be bothered to try it on IE.

Chrome performs like client desktops used to. I look forward to our new browser-based overlords.

Re:Works in Safari too (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255135)

Yeah, the gravity thing seems to work on Firefox 3 as well. Most of these things should work with a browser that is relatively standards compliant.

The gravity thing works in Firefox, but it is environment dependent. When I turned the monitor on it's side, nothing happened. You've got to have the monitor perfectly level.

Spacedot[dot]org. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255833)

Yeah, the gravity thing seems to work on Firefox 3 as well. Most of these things should work with a browser that is relatively standards compliant.

The gravity thing works in Firefox, but it is environment dependent. When I turned the monitor on it's side, nothing happened. You've got to have the monitor perfectly level.

Hrm, weird, seems to work for me when the monitor is on its side. Or even upside down for that matter...

What? You don't think we read Slashdot from space? Hey cool, I can see your house from here!

Re:Spacedot[dot]org. (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255989)

Try the other side.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255601)

The ball thing works even in FF2.0.0.20 on OSx 10.3.9. Not very smooth (JS is relative slow still in that browser) but still, it works. Gravity also mostly works, haven't tried it much as it is too sluggish. Sad it can't work in IE which is years younger than this browser, which is ages in the computer world.

Re:Works in Safari too (2, Funny)

Hasney (980180) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254811)

Can I throw a ball from one iPhone to another?

Why play catch when I can just sit on my butt to throw a ball?

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255181)

Tuesday's iPhone 3.0 announcement included bonjour/iPhone discovery via bluetooth, so something similar is possible. I don't know if you could determine relative position of the other iphone's, though.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

darkvad0r (1331303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254845)

In Firefox too, but it's not nearly as smooth as on Chrome

Re:Works in Safari too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27254867)

I tried Gravity & Ball in FF3 and both worked fine, and the Colorcube worked too. We've Slashdotted Google now though so all I get are "403 Over quota" messages.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255125)

How does it compare in speed? The gravity thing was quite slow in Safari 4 / OS X.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255925)

I just did the ball thing in FF3 and it worked great. As another noted, the page elements at the bottom were largely unusable though.

Re:Works in Safari too (2, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255313)

...Apple is hoping will make the lack of flash on the iPhone a moot point.

This certainly does make Flash obsolete. What we really need now is an open source program that makes creating such content as simple as it is in Flash.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

BenevolentP (1220914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255589)

Yep. I guess most video sites will move swiftly to javascript-decoding and rendering their flvs and mp4s.

Re:Works in Safari too (3, Informative)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255715)

Yep. I guess most video sites will move swiftly to javascript-decoding and rendering their flvs and mp4s.

HTML 5 [wikipedia.org] has <audio> and <video> tags, the actual decoding and rendering is handled by the browser.

Re:Works in Safari too (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255899)

If you have Firefox 3.1:

http://tinyvid.tv/ [tinyvid.tv]

Real time Chroma-Key replacement: https://developer.mozilla.org/samples/video/chroma-key/index.xhtml [mozilla.org]

(Let's see you do THAT in Flash!)

Please be gentle with my server, but here's my own Chroma-Key experiments for Firefox 3.1b3:

http://iambatman.homeip.net/html5/index.xhtml [homeip.net]

Click "Play", then mess with the "Chroma Key", "Invert", and "Mute" buttons to your heart's delight.

(The video is a random green screen video pulled off of Youtube.)

Note that this should work in Safari 4 with the OGG plugin. Unfortunately, the OGG plugin is out of date for Windows. It would be easy to configure MP4 as a fallback for Safari, but I haven't gotten that far yet. :P

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255759)

Yes, this is an absolutely critical point that all to often seems to be overlooked. Want to success with a format? Make a tool to create content that people (especially visual types) will want to use. Flash sets the bar pretty low, actually. I hate it, as do many graphic designers.

I think this was why SVG has largely failed to take off. There's wasn't a creation tool early enough (Illustrator could create SVG files, but it wasn't obvious when you were working on something whether SVG supported it or not--very hit and miss). Inkscape has largely corrected that, but... no native mac version is kinda death in the visual world.

Re:Works in Safari too (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255977)

I've toyed with a lot of vector graphics programs and hands down, Inkscape is by far the easiest and most polished.

A native Mac version would be awesome.

Re:Works in Safari too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255845)

Oh they will come, eventually.

As it is right now, these are just early stages of experimentation.

Give it a year or so, there should be at least 2 different people who have created guides and/or tools to make it easier to create such interfaces.

I might even give it a shot, if i have the time.

But can it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27254869)

.. run a Beowulf cluster of those applications and still be stable?

Friendly competition still, right? (2, Funny)

imajinarie (1057148) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254875)

So I wonder who will send the other team a cake?

I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254885)

Yeah, that's fun. And it certainly *looks* cooler than my Adblock Plus, my Noscript, and my dozen other useful add-ons.

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255013)

I'll second that. The add-ons, or lack of, make me not able to use Chrome. Hopefully the new version will have the ability to make add-ons.

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (0)

TheSeer2 (949925) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255077)

I thought the lack of adblock and noscript would be an issue when switching - but it really isn't. The much more streamlined, speedier experience just makes up for it (well, it doesn't "make up" for it since I realised the ads just don't bother me - adblock, solving a problem I didn't know I had!).

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (1)

GodKingAmit (1192629) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255869)

Use privoxy with chrome to eliminate most ads

Coming soon to your Chrome browser (1)

linumax (910946) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255101)

More of a POC at the moment [blogspot.com] , but at least there's hope.

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255113)

Why is it that every time Adblock is mentioned on /. it's accompanied with bellowing clouds of smug? At least people seem to be doing it less when mentioning Linux, hence the recent increases in market share...

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (5, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255209)

You don't need Chrome to make these experiments work. This is more of a demonstration of what web standards compliance can do than what Chrome can do. The coolest part is that it pretty much makes most Flash related content obsolete.

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255641)

Flash related content obsolete

It's getting there, slowly... and only on the most modern browsers... and Flash isn't standing still (see Pixel Bender applied to live webcams for an example).

The biggest issue is the "modern browser" problem... Flash will work in IE6/7/8 FF1/2/3 etc... with a relatively minor update to the plugin (doesn't affect anything else).

Flash is now more searchable via Google as well and has support for deep linking.... not to mention the old standby SOCKET support which still requires a lot of extra development to get working in html + AJAX + Comet server while in Flash it's almost trivial to set up (though the use case for it is hard to come by of course).

PasswordMaker, firebug, webdeveloper, (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255309)

greasemonkey, CustomizeGoogle, FlashBlock ...

Re:I'll take my Firefox add-ons instead , thanks (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255359)

Yep. Not being able to block googleanalytics.com is a deal breaker. Wonder when they'll add it...?

sooo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27254937)

google takes the apple route and goes "hey look at teh shiny!!!! wooooo!"

Re:sooo (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255425)

google takes the apple route and goes "hey look at teh shiny!!!! wooooo!"

As opposed to what? Emulating Dell: "Hey look at the big clumsy gray slab!!! It's Microsoft Vista® enabled! WOOOOOOO!"

Hello Slashdot..? (5, Insightful)

Ancil (622971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27254981)

I know we're all supposed to hate Microsoft, but come on.

Here's a story: On the day Microsoft releases IE 8 -- the most popular web browser in the world -- Slashdot doesn't mention it, but posts a trivial article about Google Chrome benchmarks.

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (1)

MortenMW (968289) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255165)

This is slashdot.... enough said. Now get off my lawn!

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (5, Funny)

wfWebber (715881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255479)

Exactly. Shut up and let me play with my balls.

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255177)

Push your MS-branded horns back into your head -- IE8 isn't being released until noon.

Maybe, just maybe, they're waiting to release when you can actually download the browser?

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (1, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255311)

Besides that wake me up, when Microsoft finally will implement ecmascript 4.0 (never everyone should use silverlight instead) and svg and when it does more than 20% in ACID3!!!

IE8 is an important release for Microsoft heads who do not have recognized that the world has moved 5 years along and is five years ahead of ie8 standardswise! But besides that it personally leaves me cold, because I know that the web again will be slowed down in the possibilities by this release for at least another 5-6 years. Hell there are even people who insist on ie5.5...
Sorry but if I could i would not even test anymore against ie8 but leave the Microsoft using people out in the cold with a decent link to the latest safari/firefox/chrome you name it!

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (2, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255233)

IE8 is not the most popular browser in the world since no one uses it currently, and I rather doubt it will gain the dominance ie6 once had.
Four words "to little to late"!

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (2, Funny)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255417)

also 4 'o's

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (1, Troll)

Quothz (683368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255305)

Here's a story: On the day Microsoft releases IE 8 -- the most popular web browser in the world -- Slashdot doesn't mention it, but posts a trivial article about Google Chrome benchmarks.

So what are you waiting for? Submit an article about IE 8.

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (2)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255447)

I concur. If we don't have an official slashdot article mentioning the release of IE8, where are we supposed to vent all of our disdain and disappointment? It's part of our therapy and we demand it!

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (5, Insightful)

Kifoth (980005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255565)

No. Here's a story. Google releases a site that'll almost certainly show up IE8's substandard Javascript handling, the day before IE8 goes live.
Tinfoil hats... Go!

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (0, Troll)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255717)

I know we're all supposed to hate Microsoft, but come on.

Here's a story: On the day Microsoft releases IE 8 -- the most popular web browser in the world -- Slashdot doesn't mention it, but posts a trivial article about Google Chrome benchmarks.

How can a browser be the most popular one, if it hasn't been released yet?

How does one determine popularity? Just because Microsoft installs IE by default on all Windows computers, doesn't mean people like it. Just because people who haven't been informed of options and/or have simply choosen the path of interia and used what there rather than find something better, doesn't mean they like it.

When the article summary itself says "On the day that Microsoft launches Internet Explorer 8, Google has unveiled a new site that showcases the Javascript performance of its Chrome browser." how can you validate the claim that no one has mentioned it?

Amusingly,these are all questions I don't care about the answers for, your whine was pittable but not convincing.

Re:Hello Slashdot..? (4, Interesting)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255829)

On the day Microsoft releases IE 8 -- the most popular web browser in the world -- Slashdot doesn't mention it, but posts a trivial article about Google Chrome benchmarks.

So, there may be no IE 8 story, but this one is hardly trivial. The things Google did in these benchmarks were previously only done in Flash. This is a major breakthrough in developing an alternative to Flash.

Limited platforms (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255009)

That's what it's all about in the demoscene, right? People are in awe when they see what you can do in 64kB on a PC and what a 6502 can do with cycle-exact programming. Yet anyone interested more in results than in technical experiments will simply expand the platform and make these demos look like child's play, because that's what they are: An exercise in testing the limits of a very limited platform. HTML and the javascript browser API should never have become the basis of a UI standard. The privacy problems, performance deficiencies and the baroque API will haunt us for decades. Look ma, I'm using a 2GHz dual-core processor to simulate a couple of 2D balls bouncing around in almost fluid motion.

Google Gravity... a blast from the past! (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255017)

Ah, a classic hack... variations of this date back to the '70s. I wrote one around 1980, and I'm sure I wasn't the first. A few years back I was googling around and came across it:

rot [scarydevil.com] .

This is a fixed version. There was one bug in the original... the timer to slow the update down didn't work, but since a high speed display back then was 9600 baud I'd never noticed.

Two patches after 25 years... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255419)

Aha, I just tested this on my Mac and it's apparently gotten bit by a change in termcap/terminfo in the past 25 or so years... padding used to be handled by a number at the beginning of a capability, and now it's handled by a '$' inline sequence. The lameness filter is refusing to let me post the patch. Hey, it's source code, you goons. Sheesh.

What's the point (3, Insightful)

slackoon (997078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255049)

So I can throw a ball from one browser window to another, so I can have the Google home page fall to the bottom of my screen in a heap....WHAT'S THE POINT?
Firefox and it's addons allow me to do anything that I want and more. Although I do like Google chrome I'm sticking with Firefox. They develop for the sake of improvement and not just for the sake of "look at me!!" like apparently Google does.

so nothing that's actually useful, then? (-1, Flamebait)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255061)

just some superficial eye-candy to suck the processor cycles away from useful work

Re:so nothing that's actually useful, then? (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255295)

Seriously though, what exactly is accomplished here? Their goal with Chrome was to get the other browser developers to accelerate their javascript parsers/engines, and that seems to have worked fine - all (most) of them are now rushing to announce new, accelerated versions. Why bother with more "we're still faster, catch us if you can!" teasing? Even the demos that they themselves commissioned don't do anything *useful* -- it's like you said, they max out the CPU. Great. Do you have an example of a real-world web application that does that? If not, I'd rather see that time spent getting a proper version for Linux, and extension support.

Re:so nothing that's actually useful, then? (5, Insightful)

hannson (1369413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255761)

Seriously though, what exactly is accomplished here?

First and foremost it's a marketing stunt. If you launch an "experiment" in any other browser than Google Chrome they warn you that it might not work (but allow you to "Roll the dice" and try.

Second, it shows that it's possible to do pretty things using the common web standards alone, without proprietary plugins like flash or silverlight.

I'd rather see that time spent getting a proper version for Linux, and extension support.

That's really close minded. The teams working on Chromium/Google Chrome are not the people behind these demos and the lack of Linux and extension support is being worked on - I'd rather wait a little longer than them becoming a major clusterfuck. Besides, these demos are really just a fun prove of concept.

What is this, Skymall? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255067)

You know the duty free sales magazine in the back of every airline seat? This summary sounds like something out of it.

Google's Amazing Browser Experiments!

The World's Finest Robot Dog Bed!

The Perfect Toothbrush - That Can Think!

Sweden's Softest Bathrobes!

Re:What is this, Skymall? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255345)

Well the in-flight entertainment system is down, so you have no choice but to read the damn thing anyway!

Muhahahaha!

Linkage (2, Insightful)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255145)

Why does the Chrome Experiments link not go to the Chrome Experiments site but instead to a PC Pro article? That's just plain nuts. Sure link to the article but come on.

Re:Linkage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255559)

No use complaining. CmdrTaco thinks his insane linking style is superior to the style every reasonable person uses.

DUPE (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255155)

This was reported on yesterday: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/18/2128256 [slashdot.org]

Reader Al notes too that "Google has launched Chrome Experiments, a site where Javascript coders can upload projects that make use of Chrome's speed and processing abilities. The site already features a handful of cool 'experiments' including a balls that jump between browser windows, a gravitationally-challenged version of the Google homepage and a game that runs through nine different browsers. It's cool stuff alright, but some experts wonder whether browser security might be a more important thing to focus on."

Here's my comment [slashdot.org] about real-time Chroma-Key replacement in Firefox.

Re:DUPE (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255619)

I don't know if I would call it a dupe. That was a side note to another story. It deserves to be a story all by itself.

If anything, I think making it a side note in the first place was a bad decision.

runs great in firefox.. (1)

junglebeast (1497399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255291)

all of them, including the 3d ones, run well in firefox for me...haven't tried chrome. but chrome is just too feature-light to be useful at this point, regardless of how fast it may be...

Re:runs great in firefox.. (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255557)

Which makes it perfect and unbloated ;)
If you're looking for features and no FF bloat, check out Maxthon2 [maxthon.com]

Re:runs great in firefox.. (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255893)

That Bloat word is such non-sense, probably invented by geeks to justify lack of features... If you are not using a feature, then how is it bloat? How is it harming your performance? How is it bad? And the best reason for firefox is addons, which means you are choosing your features, so bloat sounds like humbug here... I am not sure if I should take your post seriously at all considering you suggested Maxthon.

Re:runs great in firefox.. (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255953)

I like firefox and wouldn't trade it for chrome, but as of now I am trying the bouncing ball on 3.1b2 and it is quite slow, frames skips and the rest of the pages become sluggish . However, my computer is a Pentium 4 and I haven't tested in chrome mostly because I don't run windows...

Re:runs great in firefox.. (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27256047)

I just tested in Cross over Chromium and it is better, still low frame rate and other pages feel slower, but the frames don't skip.

This is much better and more legit than just posting benchmark results, google got smart with this one

Firefox 3, Ubuntu 8.10, Pentium M 1.7 Ghz (1)

Roy Hobbs (1267752) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255335)

What's the big deal, works fine on my reliable 5 year old Latitude D800.

Slashdot posts Google PR feed to front page (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255609)

In an amazing display of technological wizardry, Slashdot now automatically posts Google's PR feed to their front page.

"It saves us time and effort," said CmdrTaco, "and there are fewer typos if we rely on Google's PR staff to write our posts. Their writing is really amazing." Added RobLimo: "We've been testing it with MIT's feed for years".

Browser Ball (1)

nitroyogi (1471601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255649)

I experimented with Browser Ball in Chrome itself for a while and I found it very engaging. I think, it could help in teaching kids with learning disabilities to focus more. The way the ball path could be changed by repositioning new windows seems a fairly involved mental task with immediate results and a lot of cognitive delight. But, I must add that CPU usage was full throttle ... almost. Something still needs to be checked.

Gravity thingie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27255755)

I'd like to point to this wii ad that has been on the internet for a while now:

http://www.youtube.com/experiencewii

It uses the gravity thingie.

I wonder if they work with Explorer 8 (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255787)

All the experiments worked with Firefox, so I think their is a fair chance that Explorer 8 works,

Gravity... old? (1)

cdpage (1172729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255839)

isn't this kinda old now?

http://www.youtube.com/experiencewii
I mean it worked in my firefox then...

Javascript performance (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255877)

There's been a lot of stories lately about new browser releases and how they have the fastest Javascript performance yet.

I asked why Javascript performance was such a big deal, and I didn't feel any answers I got were particularly convincing.

These experiments however have answered my question much more convincingly, the answer is not that existing applications need it but that future innovations in Javascript can achieve some pretty amazing things if Javascript implementations are efficient enough.

Microsoft must be changing pants now. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 5 years ago | (#27255997)

I wonder if javascript and html 5 can make Silverlight become as useless as video in flash made Windows Media Player. Javascript is pretty close if not already there to be able to replace .net, java and flash in most online applications. If enough sites appear thats useful or fun and demands a fast javascript engine this could erode IE marketshare at the same time as it erodes its developer community.

malicious uses (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27256025)

Can't wait for viruses to start inserting that gravity JS code into random pages. Highjacking computers. Popping up messages saying "Pay us $20 and your pages will stop falling to the floor".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?