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 Releases Chrome V2.0

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the windows-only-tut-mir-leid dept.

Google 381

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.

cancel ×

381 comments

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

AdBlock Plus (4, Interesting)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046077)

Does it have AdBlock Plus?

As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.

Re:AdBlock Plus (5, Informative)

Laxori666 (748529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046175)

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

Re:AdBlock Plus (4, Insightful)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046241)

Agreed, although this is one reason why Firefox will likely still have a life -- it's unaffiliated with a company that makes money through advertising. Why would Google support a browser add-on that allows you to block their main revenue source?

Re:AdBlock Plus (4, Interesting)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046467)

Chromium is opensource.

Fork your git branch
Rewrite AdBlock plus for Chromium ...
??? ...
Profit !

Re:AdBlock Plus (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046807)

Fork your git branch

Please watch your language.

Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging bug. (1, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046803)

What seems relevant here is that Google seems to have much better management than Mozilla Foundation: Firefox, the laptop killer: 200 CPU hogging bugs [slashdot.org] .

Once there are plug-ins for Google's browser, it seems likely that Firefox will die.

Re:Not fixed in 7 years: The Firefox CPU hogging b (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047203)

I have that problem as well, but then only on the machines where I've installed every add-on I could find. So something tells me it's more my fault than Mozilla's.

Re:AdBlock Plus (5, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046951)

They specifically listed AdBlock as one of the things they wanted to support through their extension API, which is still in development.

Re:AdBlock Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046393)

does it break an existing adblock plus install like the last one?

No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait forever (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046657)

Apparently the Slashdot developers use Chrome on a mighty fast machine; otherwise they'd realize the shame they've brought onto themselves by writing that horribly slow Javascript code and commit hara-kiri.

Re:No, but you can load Slashdot and not wait fore (4, Interesting)

glennpratt (1230636) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046963)

This is why I switched to the Chrome beta almost full time.

It doesn't lock up on bad Flash sites, it just kills flash (good riddance), it doesn't fail to load JavaScript on Slashdot (Firefox), it doesn't sit on 1GB of my RAM for no apparent reason (Firefox) and it doesn't crash for no apparent reason (Safari).

Re:AdBlock Plus (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046991)

It can run most Greasemonkey scripts.

Re:AdBlock Plus (3, Insightful)

swilver (617741) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047255)

Not ditching it before it also has NoScript. I seriously couldn't care less about JavaScript performance, I donot want applications in my browser.

Windows Only (5, Insightful)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046091)

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?

Re:Windows Only (4, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046165)

It takes time to develop software. It doesn't matter what resource you have, beyond a certain point, it still takes lots of time.

And they are working on both, you know. They're open-source. You can go look at them. You can go help out - isn't that what open source advocates tell you to do every time you complain about an open source app?

Re:Windows Only (3, Interesting)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047259)

All that you say is true, but there is something not credible about the length of time that it has taken for them to get this done. It seems to have taken longer for them to do the linux port than it did for them to build the entire windows version.

Having said that, I don't really suspect there's anything sinister going on here ... something tells me it is more to do with there being fundamentally more difficult challenges on linux than windows. When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it. I strongly suspect that Google is being a perfectionist here and are simply not willing to release something that doesn't meet the incredibly high bar they have set for chrome.

Re:Windows Only (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047305)

All that you say is true, but there is something not credible about the length of time that it has taken for them to get this done. It seems to have taken longer for them to do the linux port than it did for them to build the entire windows version.

How would you know? You don't know when work started on the Windows version. And the Linux and OS X versions have been in development for no more than half a year.

Re:Windows Only (4, Interesting)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047367)

I doubt it. Have you looked at the Chrome code? It's littered with hard-coded windows-only bullshit. It's just very unelegantly designed, that's why it's taking so long.

Re:Windows Only (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28047319)

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.

Re:Windows Only (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046197)

I thought that Google used a customized Ubuntu on a hell of a lot of their desktop systems. If that is still the case, it would be odd that they would exclude a lot of their own employees using Google's own browser while at work at Google.

Re:Windows Only (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046207)

Given that they run Linux in house even. >.>

Re:Windows Only (2, Informative)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046209)

There are builds of chromium for GNU/Linux and Mac.

I tried the Mac build and it works, but still rough around the edges.

Re:Windows Only (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046361)

Didn't know that. Going to look now...

Re:Windows Only (5, Informative)

ogrisel (1168023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046233)

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

Re:Windows Only (2, Informative)

DarthBender (1071972) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047159)

Posting this from Chromium running on Ubuntu 9.04 64bit. It's alpha but seems stable and fast.

Re:Windows Only (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046501)

Google only targets the platform where IE is predominant - that is, Windows. On the other platforms, Firefox or Safari will do the job that Chrome is doing on Windows. Either way, it suits Google's strategy.

Re:Windows Only (5, Interesting)

rikkitikki (91982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046819)

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.

Re:Windows Only (2, Informative)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047113)

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?

If you're on Mac, try Safari 4. They both use Webkit, it's pretty nice, fast, and is very similar to Chrome in the terms of the look and UI.

Personally, I feel naked without Firebug.

No plug in support (3, Insightful)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046099)

No plug-ins, not usable.

Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses. Mouse gestures would be nice. Those two things would go really far towards the acceptance of Chrome.

Re:No plug in support (4, Informative)

zoips (576749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046119)

Chrome has plugins (Flash, etc). You mean add-ons.

Re:No plug in support (5, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046205)

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

Re:No plug in support (4, Funny)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046459)

I've got adblock plus, but I dont' go to masses anymore. Too preachy. I like to limit the ability of other people to tell me what to do.

Re:No plug in support (5, Funny)

Drafell (1263712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046621)

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

Re:No plug in support (5, Interesting)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046213)

Way ahead of you.

http://adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]

Re:No plug in support (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046775)

Thanks for the link, looks good.

Re:No plug in support (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046869)

Way ahead of you. http://adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]

I guess I'm ahead of everyone. ;-)

Privoxy blocked http://adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org] .
See why or go there anyway.

Re:No plug in support (5, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046253)

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.~

Re:No plug in support (4, Informative)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046339)

Chrome will have proper extensions in the next 1-2 months. (They already work in the bleeding-edge dev version.) Adblocking extensions already exist (like AdSweep [adsweep.org] ), but it'll take at least half a year to have the comfort and functionality that Adblock for Firefox has (extra blacklisting/whitelisting without editing arcane JavaScript files, easy installation, easy updates, choice of filter lists...).

Re:No plug in support (2, Informative)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046381)

Really? On the high end maybe 1% of the internet population uses some type of adblocking software. Not to mention there are ways to block ads and still browse with Chrome, not as well as Adblock, but it gets the job done.

Personally I have no problem without adblocking software, if it means I don't have to run the bloated piece of shit that is Firefox (sorry guys, just being honest).

Re:No plug in support (1)

pseelig (850) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046385)

Just use privoxy and even Chrome will become a haven of ads free peace.
Check out www.privoxy.org for info and down.

Re:No plug in support (2, Insightful)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046427)

I'd consider calling a browser without addins "unusable" a little over dramatic.

I'd conjecture most users don't even know about addins, and quite a few in addition would consider them as glue-and-bandaids over a browser shortcoming; not that as an inherently virtuous platform "feature."

Most people will choose Chrome for performance and the Google name that they trust, if they change their browser at all.

Re:No plug in support (5, Interesting)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046579)

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.

Re:No plug in support (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047155)

Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses.

...says the guy who has an ad in his signature.

I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (4, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046103)

But I can't live with the invasion of privacy [wikipedia.org] . Sorry :(

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (2, Funny)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046225)

Chrome is a trap! This is why there is no version for Linux...

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046251)

Big mistake.
The early adopters are, by definition, going to be geeks who will be most pissed off, and vocal about this tracking.

No thonx google.

Provokes an Interesting Question (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046479)

If Google, an open source project, sends out all sorts of data that you might consider an invasion of privacy, is the open source community free to fork it?

Re:Provokes an Interesting Question (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046733)

I mean Chrome, not Google. Sorry.

Re:Provokes an Interesting Question (3, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046855)

If Google, an open source project, sends out all sorts of data that you might consider an invasion of privacy, is the open source community free to fork it?

Chrome is not an open source project. Chromium is an open source project, and yes, you're free to fork that, as per the terms of the licenses [google.com] .

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (4, Informative)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046547)

But I can't live with the invasion of privacy [wikipedia.org] . Sorry :(

So why not get Iron [srware.net] ?

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (4, Insightful)

AMSmith42 (60300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046555)

I'm not sure I buy into "usage tracking is an invasion of privacy" mantra. It seems to me this is a modern day "taking your photograph will steal your soul" sort of superstition. Is the internet not a public place? I'm not sure what kind of privacy people expect while using it.

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (2, Insightful)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046613)

I'm not sure I buy into "usage tracking is an invasion of privacy" mantra.

Good for you.

It seems to me this is a modern day "taking your photograph will steal your soul" sort of superstition.

Actually it's more like I don't want them collecting data on me that they sell later for money without my express permission.

Is the internet not a public place? I'm not sure what kind of privacy people expect while using it.

So then you would be perfectly fine with your bank, for example, having you do transactions over unencrypted connections? I mean the internet is a public place, right?

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046873)

Actual, the send an encrypted string that you can turn off, so we don't really know what they are sending. I suspect marketing and ad info they sell.
Info that's useless if they don't know anything about the user.

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046999)

According to Wikipedia, that string is the one thing you can't switch off. Is their information incorrect?

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28047023)

It isn't a superstition. It's a matter of having someone monitoring your actions and collecting your personal information. I cannot see a single reason why a random person should be allowed to monitor your every step and action, let alone a corporation (and foreign for some of us).

And just for you to know, sometimes corporations do release information they've collected to state officials, with happy developments like imprisoning political activists and dissidents. Do you also consider that to be superstition?

Re:I could live with no Adblock/Noscript (1)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047339)

I leave my Gmail session open in Chrome, and use Firefox for most everything else.

Still waiting... (3, Insightful)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046111)

I'd really love to try this hyped up browser but I don't seem to have a Windows machine at my disposal. Throw us (linux/Mac people) a fricken bone, Google.

Re:Still waiting... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046217)

Development builds are right there for the downloading.

Re:Still waiting... (1)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046243)

That's great but I don't want a dev build. They have now reached version 2.0 for Windows but nothing for linux/Mac? C'mon!

Re:Still waiting... (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046297)

You know that it takes time to develop software, right? It doesn't just spring into existence by itself?

Re:Still waiting... (1)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046359)

Indeed. And they have had enough time to develop two versions so far. For Windows.

Re:Still waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046395)

Adobe told us this for how long about Flash?
And then for how long about 64-bit Flash?

Re:Still waiting... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046937)

Once again, development builds are right there for the downloading.

Re:Still waiting... (3, Insightful)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046449)

So a smaller company like Mozilla can magically develop for 3 platforms simultaneously but a much bigger company can't? I call bullshit.

Re:Still waiting... (2, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046887)

The first beta of Chrome was released about six months ago. Mozilla's codebase is about 15 years old. You do understand that Mozilla have had a substantial head-start, right?

Re:Still waiting... (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047031)

The first beta of Chrome was released about six months ago.

And? What does that have to do with the lack of development for anything other than Windows? Are you telling me that they couldn't have been doing simultaneous development from the start? Please...

Mozilla's codebase is about 15 years old.

What does that have to do with anything?

You do understand that Mozilla have had a substantial head-start, right?

What does Mozilla's head start have to do with the fact that they are apparently able to do cross-platform development better than a company who has vastly more people and money at their disposal? Even the original releases of Netscape were cross-platform so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. So basically even at the start when they had even less resources they were somehow able to do better cross-platform development than a multibillion dollar, multinational company.

Re:Still waiting... (1)

Madjeurtam (101190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047011)

Mozilla does it in a stupid way (IMHO) by using a non-native widget set and all this XUL nonsense. Google tries to do it the right way, by developing a specific version for each platform. It takes a bit of time.

Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.

Re:Still waiting... (2, Insightful)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047063)

Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.

That would make sense if they were selling it, but it's a product they are giving away so other than sheer laziness there is no reason they shouldn't have been doing cross-platform work from the start.

Re:Still waiting... (1)

SgtSnorkel (704106) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046365)

Seriously, who has time to play around with apps that only work on a legacy OS?

Re:Still waiting... (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046897)

What legacy OS would that be? Chrome doesn't work on anything older than XP SP2. Oh wait, you were making a snide comment about how Windows is inferior. Golly gee.

How do these companies avoid nix that use it so mu (1)

zifr (1467429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046113)

Google's desktops are Ubuntu based, their servers are Fedora based, however their nix apps appear to be lacking.

Still waiting for OS X (1)

Croakus (663556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046121)

I ditched Windoze for good last year and will not go back. Would be cool if Google could compile this for OS X or Linux.

i would try chrome with wine (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046151)

but google's screwed up method of not even letting Linux users have a download url for the windows version

Re:i would try chrome with wine (2, Informative)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046177)

If you really wanted to do this, you could find it. But, it's really slow under wine anyway.

Re:i would try chrome with wine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046259)

Is this actually true, or a jab at Wine? 'cause the latest version isn't in AppDB at all.

Re:i would try chrome with wine (3, Informative)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046383)

Version 1 was slow, I haven't tried version 2 under wine. I have no motivation to run Chrome unless I can run it in my native OS.

Re:i would try chrome with wine (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046189)

spoof your user agent

Re:i would try chrome with wine (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046291)

User Agent Switcher:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59

Fool all those moronic sites that to browser sniffing.

Here we go again (4, Funny)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046267)

Oh great, another post about Chrome. Brace yourself for a wave of 3 general responses:

"No Linux version, so it sucks." - The Jealous Bitch

"It doesn't have (feature from Firefox), I refuse to use it." - The High and Mighty Prick

"I'm all out of tin-foil, you can't trust Google." - The Stallman Worshipers

Re:Here we go again (1)

TornCityVenz (1123185) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046331)

Missing Option. But I'm already using it you insensitive clod!

Re:Here we go again (1, Interesting)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046693)

I'm pretty sure you're being modded Insightful because you list three points that are very good, no matter how sarcastically you state them.

Re:Here we go again (2, Funny)

qtzlctl (1538903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046697)

I'm here to use browsers and wrap tin-foil ass and I'm all out of tin-foil.

js rendering is not the bottleneck (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28046303)

for me, most of the lag I experience is latency related. Once the webpage gets to me, I'm fairly happy if it takes under a few seconds to render.

Then, I'd like a stable connection, and working webpages (ie without bugs).

Next, I'd like more intelligent tabbing: one which tracks my current surfing location as a whole, and bookmarks that. (I'm thinking a tree structure for tabs, with parents and children and all that; and a dynamic bookmark, that would follow me clicks, for when I'm reading online documentation, or any multipage document.)

Ok, after all that, now I'm interested in js performance. Sorry :(

[a question for those who want adblock in this browser. You realize that while Google makes themselves out to be a search and indexing company, that they are really a very high tech advertising company, don't you? For them to implement adblocking, that would undercut their entire business model. If they did it anyway, and left their ads unblocked?, well, that would just be illegal, under antitrust laws.]

Re:js rendering is not the bottleneck (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047185)

I think you're confused about what adblock blocks. It doesn't block TEXT ads, and as far as I know that's all Google does.

Re:js rendering is not the bottleneck (2, Insightful)

boshi (612264) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047307)

Google also serves image ads, and I'm pretty sure I've even seen some flash ads, though I could be wrong about the last one.

I also think you are confused about how google ads work, or adblock works, because it is quite simple in adblock to block all google text ads.

Abblock for me is necessary, not because I have an aversion to seeing advertisements, but because I block content which distracts me from the page I am reading. I use adblock, but I do not subscribe the massive "catch-all" lists it tries to get me to install. I simply use it as a tool to remove content that annoys me as I browse.

Re:advertising (1)

munk3h (1032804) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047247)

This was my initial thought too. Google make their money off adds. To make it easy to use Adblock Plus on Chrome would lose them money. Chrome is good, but I have too many Firefox plugins that are _so_ useful, I cannot switch.

* ietab - For SharePoint integration features with evil nazi M$ Office (Sucks, but I need it for work)
* Adblock Plus - Making the internets bearable
* Gmail Manager - multiple gmail accounts monitored
* XMarks - Sync'ed bookmarks, mit the tags also. ftw.
* SwitchProxy Tool - For work/home migration. Changing the proxy for ie, safari (damn I hate that one) and chrome is a bitch. Firefox + Proxy Switch Tool really ftw.

I still prefer Chrome. (4, Funny)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046357)

Say what you want, but Chrome is my default browser in Vista, and has been since it came out. I don't visit a lot of random sites, and ads aren't that big a deal.

The reason I like Chrome? Its topbar is thinner and more elegant that Firefox's by default. Really, that's it.

Otherwise, I'm your typical nerd. I run ArchLinux, use Firefox+Firebug for development, and I doubt I could get a girlfriend if I tried (I married the girl who dated me in highschool, before she realized what she had done, so that's okay)

So.. (-1, Redundant)

Anenome (1250374) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046413)

So, does it have Adblocker and Noscript? No? No thank you.

Chrome without Privacy Issues (5, Informative)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046441)

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 [srware.net]

Re:Chrome without Privacy Issues (3, Funny)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046729)

$ aptitude search chromium
p chromium - fast paced, arcade-style, scrolling space shooter

Now that's the browser for me!

Re:Chrome without Privacy Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28047095)

Yeah-- I've been using it since the first version. Runs well.

No (1)

Murpster (1274988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046481)

Screw this Googleweb Explorer.

Issues of Awesome (1)

bryll (854882) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046637)

It is a matter of public safety that google has not released a Linux or OS X version yet. You see, if the incredible Awesome of Chrome were to clash with the respective Awesome of either Linux or OS X, there would be an overload of Awesome, which in turn would become an explosion of Rad. This would cause a resonance-cascade incident that could result in fires, floods, a breakdown of world society and possibly also cause supermarkets to run out of most forms of effective cleaning products.

Re:Issues of Awesome (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047051)

Ah, but this is okay for some of us as the awesomeness of Chrome and the awesomeness of Linux can be be brought into harmonic awesomeness with the Awesome Window Manager [naquadah.org] .

Does it have "No-Adblock"-Block? (4, Funny)

IvyMike (178408) | more than 5 years ago | (#28046987)

You know, the plugin that blocks the endless comments from people asking "does it have Adblock?"

Chromium has fullscreen mode (1)

paziek (1329929) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047173)

Chromium has fullscreen mode, and I saw something like Opera's form filling, it did asked to save password and then that input box got yellow borders, just like in Opera... but can't get it to actually fill them.
Not sure about that improved New Tab Page, since I never saw that "non-improved" one.
Flash doesn't work, websites with flash will try to load "forever" and just display blank page until then.

Anyway, I've got full HD resolution at work, and it runs on some crappy intel card without OpenGL support (or me not knowing how to enable one), with makes scrolling very choppy in Opera/Firefox, so I use Chromium for frequently used websites, that I don't mind to see ads. It has smooth scrolling in comparison to those 2 and renders much much faster.

I don't like its interface at all, but for my favorite sites - I don't need anything more, just fast display/scroll. So for me its not JackOfAllTrades browser, but its best at what they advertise it - speed, and thats where I put it into use. Don't really mind using yet another, I had open Firefox/Opera all the time anyway, one more doesn't make a difference... well, actually it does - in a good way :)

All that was on svn revision from 20090520rIdontRemember, ubuntu box (yeah, I use one at work T_T).

Can't use Gmail on Google Chrome (1)

fullcircleflight (883189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047189)

If something as basic as check boxes [google.com] worked [google.com] in Google Chrome, I'd be more inclined to use it. I love the multi-process architecture.

Consistency Fail (2, Insightful)

nemesisrocks (1464705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047211)

Why do certain [apple.com] companies [google.com] insist on changing making their applications look inconsistent with the rest of the operating system?

The main reason I don't use Chrome (and abhor iTunes) is that Ultramon [realtimesoft.com] doesn't work with them. And that makes working with dual monitors painful.

FYI (2, Informative)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 5 years ago | (#28047237)

2.0 works by default on Win 7 x64 RC1. No need for the "--in-process-plugins"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>