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 Brings Chrome Renderer, Speedy Javascript To IE

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the behind-enemy-lines dept.

Google 239

A month after we discussed Google's bringing SVG to IE, several readers let us know that Google is expanding the beachhead by offering Chrome's renderer and speedy Javascript execution in an IE plugin. This effort is in service of allowing IE to participate in Google Wave when that technology's preview is extended in a week's time. The plugin, currently in an early stage of development, is called Google Chrome Frame.

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

All Hail Google! (-1, Offtopic)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#29509899)

Hail Yes!

Re:All Hail Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29509993)

Google: When Microsoft's implementation of Microsoft's browser just isn't enough.

I wonder how many people can foresee what this will lead to in a year or two. (Hint: Google Labs is nice this time of year)

Re:All Hail Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510405)

I wonder how many people can foresee what this will lead to in a year or two.

Google = Black Mesa??? o.O

Re:All Hail Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510551)

Where I hope it will lead to, is that Google Chrome will export COM interfaces to its various components (like the frame as it seems to be doing in the article, or the wonderful search bar) in a way that would make it possible to hack up a Chrome tailored to your own needs with minimal effort, or perhaps to use its display engine to show HTML in applications, which is now primarily done using the WebBrowser control, that is to say IE.

Do I still have to use Windows (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29509901)

and IE?

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (4, Interesting)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510117)

and IE?

No, but funny you should mention it. The funny part is that Google is beating MS in their own game. They are actually improving the MS browser so that users can properly and smoothly use Google products, and when the user is tied in he will notice not only Google Wave, but also the Google Chrome banners or "suggestions", and later on Google Chrome OS. Instead of trying to act as the bigger predator as traditional software wars, they act as the symbiotic bacteria "infecting" the host. Today IE, tomorrow the world!

Seems to me that there is simply no room for anything else than genious inside Google, but perhaps I'm giving too much credit. Still -- well played Google, well played.

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510279)

Instead of trying to act as the bigger predator as traditional software wars, they act as the symbiotic bacteria "infecting" the host.

I see your point, but at the same time, what Google is really doing in this case is applying Open Source models to a Closed Source application. One of the primary points of Open Source is you can see an application and modify it according to your whim, rather than having to depend on the originator.

Obviously, closed source makes this more difficult and provides limitations. So it's kind of a hybrid, using the plug-in model to go through a defined interface.

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (0, Troll)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510423)

The funny part is that Google is beating MS in their own game. They are actually improving the MS browser so that users can properly and smoothly use Google products

And if your browser's so screwed up that you can't even use Google properly, you know you screwed up, and you know you screwed up bad.

Seriously, the only code monkeys that could produce a browser that doesn't work with Google would have to be actual monkeys.

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510589)

or politicians.

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510761)

or Opera devs...

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510597)

Funny you should mention what? Or are you just hijacking the first post?

Re:Do I still have to use Windows (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510627)

fully agree.

1 implement cool net apps and give people an IE plugin so to achieve an almost full market penetration
2 sooner or later an IE update breaks the plugin
3 suggest the users to switch to chrome else the net app won't work
4 profit!

of course microsoft could fight that by making sure the plugin always work with each ie update.

Makes you wonder... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29509907)

...if Google is going to pull the embrace, extend and extinguish routine on Microsoft. I hope I live to see that day.

Re:Makes you wonder... (5, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510027)

...if Google is going to pull the embrace, extend and extinguish routine on Microsoft. I hope I live to see that day.

Well, it should certainly be embarrassing for the IE development group at MS to have their Arch Nemesis add these features to their product. Chair throwing time? But what could be holding Microsoft back? It's not like they don't hire phd coders just like Google, both places are swimming in overachievers. Must be a management problem...

8 hours a week (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510129)

It's the 8 hours a week that really powers Google's innovation. For those who don't know, Google employees are supposed to dedicate 8 hours a week of company time to some personal project. Those 8 hours have been responsible for Docs, gMail, Maps, Earth, code search, scholar search, etc., etc. People have ideas, give your employees a chance to explore them a bit and you might be surprised what they come up with on their own.

Re:8 hours a week (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510219)

Actually, no.

Google Docs is based on two applications: Writely, by Upstartle, and XL2Web, by 2Web Technologies.
Google Earth was originally named Earth Viewer and it was created by Keyhole, inc.
Google Maps was created for the company Where 2 Technologies.

Code and Scholar search, in spite of being useful, are nothing more than variations of Google Search, so from that list only GMail was truly created at Google.

Re:8 hours a week (2, Informative)

mcbutterbuns (1005301) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510401)

Don't forget about Orkut!

Re:8 hours a week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510453)

So if it's not Google...then why did none of those companies explode in popularity before Google, or choose not to sell and continue their growth? Why is there no true competition for Google's current iterations of these tools (other than the occasional copy-cat that's always a step behind)? And is it not also a valuable trait to be able to fairly consistently purchase such high-quality tools?

Re:8 hours a week (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510843)

Most of what you say is correct, but Code Search is technically unrelated to web search. Ever notice how you can use regular expressions in Code Search? To allow for that, the indexing pipeline has to be fundamentally different.

Re:8 hours a week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510921)

No offense, but how is Google Code just a variation on Google Search? If that's true someone should notify SourceForge that they are really in the *search* business. I don't think that they realize it yet!

Re:8 hours a week (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510321)

The vast majority of Google's services came about like this:

Jim: "Sucks to be you Bob, doing work on a Tuesday. I'm "working" on my "personal project" today."

Bob: "All you do is browse the web all day."

Jim (browsing the web all day): "Hey Bob look at this!"

Bob: "COOL! We should do that."

Jim: "Fuck it, let's just buy them out."

This includes:
Docs, Earth, Maps, Voice, and a couple others.

It's not only MS that buys out and rebrands.
It's neither good nor bad, but to ignore it and claim Google is doing amazing new things is naive. To ignore it and denounce MS for the same practice (as many do, not necessarily you) smacks of fanboyism.

Re:8 hours a week (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510363)

Former google employee here. "Supposed to" became "allowed to" became "might". Google is doing some cool things (and some scary things), but they're not the company they used to be.

Re:8 hours a week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510601)

I honestly don't see how anyone can do that. Just switch off of other projects for 8 hours a week? How can you just change focus like that? Programming takes a ton of concentration and thinking to "get in the grove" as it were.

Switching around between random projects must be why I see so much shit code out there.

Re:Makes you wonder... (2, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510133)

Must be a management problem...

Which management will investigate and decide that the only solution to is... more management.

Re:Makes you wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510299)

Which management will investigate and decide that the only solution to is... more management.

Sounds like what government does...

I guess you could just extend that to any organization that achieves large size.

Distributed stuff is better.

Re:Makes you wonder... (1, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510143)

HTML 5 is not done yet by any means. I wouldn't even say they have what you might call a working draft. Microsoft isn't necessarily behind so much as they are not working off the Mozilla and Apple webkit mailing lists when they implement features to their browser.

IE still has a very enterprise-oriented development cycle and not the bleeding edge feature explosion we see in most open source browsers.

I don't think IE needs to catch up so much as Microsoft simply needs to release an unstable browser in addition to their platform browser if they want to compete with the rest of the non-standard "standards" cult.

Re:Makes you wonder... (3, Insightful)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510233)

You don't really know what you're talking about here.

IE hasn't caught up to existing, published, finished standards- that's well before we even start talking about initial implementations of things from the in-progress HTML 5 standard. It's the worst browser in the bunch for CSS compatibility- with finished, published standards.

IE needs to play catch-up before it can even think about doing anything with HTML 5. They don't need an unstable browser fork; they just need to actually finish their standards implementations in the stable releases. They're getting better at it, definitely, but they've got a long way to go.

Re:Makes you wonder... (0)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510277)

It's the worst browser in the bunch for CSS compatibility- with finished, published standards.

Except of course if you're talking about CSS 2.1, where it is the best. CSS 3 is technically not standardized.

IE needs to play catch-up before it can even think about doing anything with HTML 5. They don't need an unstable browser fork; they just need to actually finish their standards implementations in the stable releases. They're getting better at it, definitely, but they've got a long way to go.

Web standards don't translate to the rest of the engineering world, even in software. American developers seem to expect browsers to always be operating on theoretical and only loosely agreed upon behavior... much of the rest of the world doesn't operate like this, though. The whole web standards ideal is really sort of a joke, given the circumstances.

Re:Makes you wonder... (-1, Troll)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510443)

stable releases

Microsoft? "Stable" release?

[citation needed]

W3C Working Draft (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510261)

HTML 5 is not done yet by any means. I wouldn't even say they have what you might call a working draft.

In Firefox, this page [w3.org] shows "W3C Working Draft" along the left side.

Microsoft isn't necessarily behind so much as they are not working off the Mozilla and Apple webkit mailing lists when they implement features to their browser.

A lot of the features that Acid3 tests aren't new proposals in any sense; they've been around for years. WebKit (basis for Chrome and Safari), Gecko (Firefox and SeaMonkey), and Presto (Opera) all score above 90/100, which handily beats IE 8's 20/100.

Re:W3C Working Draft (0, Troll)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510361)

In Firefox, this page [w3.org] shows "W3C Working Draft" along the left side.

It's not even complete, though. I think that's an optimistic assessment by them.

A lot of the features that Acid3 tests aren't new proposals in any sense; they've been around for years. WebKit (basis for Chrome and Safari), Gecko (Firefox and SeaMonkey), and Presto (Opera) all score above 90/100, which handily beats IE 8's 20/100.

That's not implying all of them are. IE is only supporting finished standards. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re:Makes you wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510269)

IE still has a very enterprise-oriented development cycle

Very true indeed. Every time an enterprise upgrades their version of IE, everything in the enterprise dependent on IE stops working which means another cycle of development at the enterprise.

Re:Makes you wonder... (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510749)

Very true indeed. Every time an enterprise upgrades their version of IE, everything in the enterprise dependent on IE stops working which means another cycle of development at the enterprise.

While it's true that many "enterprise" apps make use of ActiveX, it seems kind of stupid to design a Web app that depends on a spacific version of an application known to update every few years (like a browser).

Re:Makes you wonder... (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510705)

>IE still has a very enterprise-oriented development cycle and not the bleeding edge feature explosion we see in most open source browsers.

This Google plugin seems to be a very "enterprisey" feature because it allows system admins to roll out new standard-compliant webapps while not breaking the old IE-dependent ones, all while not confusing users by requiring them to use two different browsers.

Since (a) the plugin has to be installed, and (b) it has to be turned on with a metatag, it's not especially useful for public sites.

Re:Makes you wonder... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510863)

makes ME wonder if they're ever going to release Chrome for Mac OS X or Linux.

Interesting (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29509913)

Ballmer must be about ready to throw the *desk* this time. Google is taking the initiative to 'fix' their competing product. The plot thickens!

Re:Interesting (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510041)

ballmer doesn't care. ms wants to ditch ie for the most part. i guess some of us haven't been paying attention.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510181)

Riiiiiight, ditch the worlds most used browser, especially now that they've released their own search engine which it has as home by default.

i guess some of us haven't been paying attention.

No, you're right. I guess some of us haven't.

In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29509919)

Lipstick on a pig

sarah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510549)

what does this have to do with sarah palin?

It's like the frame around the Mona Lisa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29509941)

But in this case, instead of a beautiful dame, this frames crap. So I guess this is more like a frameset.

So... reverse IE tab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29509943)

Uh, that's great. Too bad all of those other Windows things will still be using the IE embedded mode.

video of Ballmer hearing this news (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#29509949)

I'd use this new browser to watch Steve's fit when hears google is subverting IE.

So, Basically.. (4, Interesting)

mkdx (1314471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29509979)

Google are taking the matter into their own hands and actually putting resources towards improving IE, because they know that MS will not do it in any reasonable way.

Re:So, Basically.. (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510339)

Google are taking the matter into their own hands and actually putting resources towards improving IE, because they know that MS will not do it in any reasonable way.

Prediction: when YouTube dumps Flash, the new 'YouTube installer' is this.

Why... (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#29509991)

...Is there an ongoing "my Javascript is faster than yours ha-ha" competition in the browser market? When looking for a browser, it isn't just speed people are looking for; They want security, add-ons, customization, and things alike.

If I want top speed, I'll use chrome. If I want an all-around great browser, I'll use Firefox.

Re:Why... (3, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510111)

A lot of the fancy shit you see on the internet today is javascript, the reason much of it wasn't there before was because javascript was so damn intensive to execute. It's nothing like machine code, it's not even like repackaged interpreter language. Javascript is run straight from the script, and it is a terribly inefficient way to do things, but it is much easier to distribute along with HTML.

JS isn't exactly the future of all websites, but it's certainly easier to work with for light effects than flash.

I'll show you why you want JS to run better... go to ebay.com and press CTRL-F5 and count how long it takes to load. Then, disable Javascript execution and press CTRL-F5 again. I'm sure someone else can suggest a more JS intensive site, but that's all I got right now.

Re:Why... (1)

Gobelet (892738) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510137)

Facebook would be a good example of this. In IE, rendering time allows the full page with images to be loaded before displaying it. I used to have up to 70% of my CPU eaten by IE7 trying to display the page (just to resituate, this was on an Eee PC 701). Chrome on the other hand displays the page much faster, and images are still loading after the page render. CPU utilization was also lower, hovering around 20%. I did not time both browsers and I don't have my Eee anymore. But I think it is (or was) a good example of a Javascript heavy website. Gmail is also a good example of a Javascript-loaded website.

Re:Why (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510145)

Man, I don't know what I'll do if I grow up in a world of portable PP presentations and JS based sites.

Anyway, regarding the Ebay thing I know how long sites like that take to long...even with the 20/10 FIOS internet my house has.

Adblock+ and NoScript is win :)

Re:Why (4, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510245)

Adblock+ and NoScript is win :)

I concur, but it's a depressing state that it should ever even be necessary to add to the work necessary to do less work in a realm where usability should be paramount.

Re:Why... (4, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510327)

I'm sure someone else can suggest a more JS intensive site, but that's all I got right now.

Slashdot.

Perhaps not as intensive as ebay.com, but without javascript enabled, Slashdot loads faster and generally works better. You could say it's "less filling".

LOL! An Actual Firefox Fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510125)

It's like seeing someone show up at a party in some hideous disco outfit thinking they are still the coolest thing.

Only retards still use that stinking pile of fail that is Firefox. Or people with such low standards that they don't care about being forced to restart their browser multiple times a day to clear out the massive resource leaks the idiots working on Firefox can't ever fix due to the archaic single threaded/single address space problem.

Chrome + memory protected tabs + the fastest multi-threaded Javascript makes Firefox look as bad as Mozilla did compared to IE years ago.

Re:LOL! An Actual Firefox Fanboy (0, Troll)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510201)

LOL! Your a retard, nice Troll.

Chrome sure has things FF doesn't (Even though protected tabs and multi-threading JS are coming in new releases), but FF has things chrome doesn't as well (The add-on store).

Nobody gives a flying fuck if Chrome loads pages a minuscule amount faster than FF.

Re:LOL! An Actual Firefox Fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510337)

LOL! Your a retard, nice Troll.

Great, now you've completely overloaded my computer's Irony Chip. Do you know how hard it is to find those nowadays?

Re:LOL! An Actual Firefox Fanboy (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510613)

LOL! Your a retard, nice Troll.

Chrome sure has things FF doesn't (Even though protected tabs and multi-threading JS are coming in new releases), but FF has things chrome doesn't as well (The add-on store).

Nobody gives a flying fuck if Chrome loads pages a minuscule amount faster than FF.

Well, if the page isn't mostly Javascript, that's not true. In my recent personal testing, prompted by a desire to leave FF behind, I found that only Opera (seriously) loaded html faster than FF. IE was tied with FF. Chrome and Safari made Javascript sing, but were much slower at loading and scrolling (my pet peeve) html.

Re:LOL! An Actual Firefox Fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510257)

Despite the fact that this comment is pretty damn harsh and almost trolling, i actually do agree.

Google really put Mozilla in their place when they released Chrome.
So much so that Mozilla are now implementing a few of the ideas from Chrome in FF4.

Chrome pretty much wiped the floor clean. When it came around, pretty much every browser vendor worked non-stop to catch up. (looks like one of Google's aims certainly worked, "drive others to improve by their [Google's] example")
When it gets extensions up and running solidly, there really won't be any competition.
Chrome is a browser done right, fast, unobtrusive, simple and secure. (oh damn it, that comes out as FUSS)

Tabs no longer take down the whole browser, just the way it should be. (all known full-browser crashes have been fixed AFAICR)

Re:LOL! An Actual Firefox Fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510283)

Unless you browse the internet non-stop, all day, this won't be a problem.

Firefox Lamers == IE Lamers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510343)

Firefox apologists:

"Unless you browse the internet non-stop, all day, this won't be a problem."

IE apologists:

"Unless you browse dangerous sites, this won't be a problem."

The irony is hilarious.

Re:Firefox Lamers == IE Lamers (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510629)

Firefox apologists:

"Unless you browse the internet non-stop, all day, this won't be a problem."

IE apologists:

"Unless you browse dangerous sites, this won't be a problem."

The irony is hilarious.

Opera is faster than FF, which is faster than Chrome, for loading Slashdot, news sites, blah blah etc. I guess I don't do much with Javascript, but when I tried to switch to webkit I couldn't get past the sluggish html rendering.

Re:Firefox Lamers == IE Lamers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510673)

"Opera is faster than FF, which is faster than Chrome, for loading Slashdot, news sites, blah blah etc."

Go away idiot.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510373)

The reason people don't care about speed is because there are very few sites out there that run too slowly on the modern browsers. The people that do care about speed are the ones that want to build sites that require greater performance than current browser can achieve. You don't see it because you're a user and those developers either scale back their creations to work with browsers or don't build the site at all. Speed counts, but only in the sites that you haven't seen yet. The sooner browsers perform up to those sites' requirements, the sooner you'll see those sites.

Google is clearly among those developers that feel they're limited in what they can build by current browser performance. That's why the released Chrome. They don't really care if people use Chrome as much as they do that other browser vendors will be forced to respond. And, thus far, it's worked for all the major browsers except IE. Firefox, Safari and Opera have all improved their JavaScript performance significantly since the introduction of Chrome. I'd guess this plugin is their response to Microsoft ignoring the performance of its browser.

And while people do want security, add-ons and customization, people also want stability and features that enable websites to be better. I want a browser that doesn't crash when plugins like Flash misbehave and doesn't grind to a halt when I visit a poorly written site. I want a browser that supports HTML 5 (supporting both H.264 and Theora) so I can visit online video sites when my laptop isn't plugged in without killing my battery (since Flash causes the CPU utilization to spike.) The only thing that keeps me using Firefox at this point is the few extensions that I use that have no Chrome equivalent. With Chrome getting add-ons in the relatively near future, it won't be long before that obstacle is gone. Chrome has more going for it than just performance.

Re:Why... (1)

zes (1544775) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510417)

I run Fx as well, but I'm not very happy with it. Chrome is a pleasure to use except for the lack of adblock (and a working osx implementation). Worst with Fx right now (besides feeling a bit slow at times) is the way its tabs work. It is so much worse than the competition it's embarrassing (drag between windows and such).

Re:Why... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510713)

Worst with Fx right now (besides feeling a bit slow at times) is the way its tabs work. It is so much worse than the competition it's embarrassing (drag between windows and such).

What is wrong with them exactly.

Drag into a new FFX window to move it into a new FFX window or onto the taskbar to create a new window with that tab.

Frankly if this is your biggest complaint then you need to take a teaspoon of concrete and harden up. FFX will do what the vast majority of users want to do and does it good enough for the vast majority of users.

Re:Why... (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510577)

Is there an ongoing "my Javascript is faster than yours ha-ha" competition in the browser market?

Uhm... Yes?

Javascript is the one client-side programming language that is always guaranteed to be there, on anything that can reasonably be called a browser. Anything that can be called a web application is probably at some point going to care about Javascript speed. And faster Javascript opens the door to some [google.com] things [sourceforge.net] you might not have thought were possible in a browser.

When looking for a browser, it isn't just speed people are looking for; They want security

Chrome runs each tab in a separate process, meaning it can theoretically sandbox each tab using standard OS techniques -- for example, on Linux, my Chromium does seem to be running things as an unprivileged user, and chrooting them out of the way.

Other browsers are playing catch-up.

add-ons, customization

The Chrome extension API isn't finished, but it's just Javascript and HTML. It's the kind of thing that a web developer could learn in an hour. It won't run Firefox extensions (yet), but it seems likely that it'll have plenty of extensions Firefox won't, just because of how much easier it is to get off the ground.

If I want top speed, I'll use chrome. If I want an all-around great browser, I'll use Firefox.

We don't care, this isn't about you. (And for what it's worth, Firefox is working hard to improve javascript, security, and reliability to match Chrome.)

This is about the 80% who still use IE, and about the rest of us not having to care anymore. I can build a web app that works in Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Epiphany, Galeon, Konqueror, Opera, in every browser, ever, with minimal effort -- figure an extra 5-10% development time to make it work on browsers other than the one I develop for. IE will fuck it up and add easily 20-50% to my development time.

Doing it this way means that at some point in the future, hopefully, something like YouTube will force IE users to either switch browsers or install this plugin -- at which point, I can forget that IE exists, and let it all melt away like a bad dream.

Security? (2, Interesting)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510019)

Last I checked, webkit browsers other than Chrome for Windows have some pretty hefty security holes and dire vulnerabilities. The question is whether google is dropping in a tiny webkit panel or a full chrome instance within this tab. Their implementation here is very important because they may end up simply shattering IE 8's security model and leaving an exploitable hole in users' systems.

Google better take this very seriously before advertising this on their search and mail pages, etc.

Re:Security? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510161)

It's strictly "opt in" for web developers, so don't worry, for websites that don't explicitly request Google Chrome Frame, you'll keep the security you've come to expect from Microsoft!!!

(I know ANY website can request GCF to turn itself on but I just wanted to make that little joke.)

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510169)

Chrome and WebKit have hefty security holes? Compared to IE? Who gave Microsoft astroturfers mod points?

Re:Security? (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510193)

The plugin is intended as a workaround for IE6; I'm sure however this plugin is impletmented IE6 will end up being less buggy for it.

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510203)

IE and Windows have a wonderful history of being secure. ActiveX plugins do even more to extend the unassailable security model. Threats to this leak proof model shouldn't be permitted.

Re:Security? (4, Informative)

robmv (855035) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510213)

From Chrome Frame Developer's Guide [google.com] :

Note: forcing websites into Google Chrome Frame with these techniques may lead to unexpected behavior. Google Chrome Frame will fetch URLs using the host browser's network stack, so the web site will send content intended for the host browser

So it looks they are only replacing the renderer and not the networking and other internal parts of IE, so it will behave remotely as a real IE, only that the content is displayed by the plugin. This is not a new idea, people tried to do it with Gecko, the advantage of WebKit is that the host (in this case IE) can provide a lot, instead Gecko is tightly tied to NetLib (The Mozilla Networking Library), NSPR (Netscape Portable Runtime), NSS (Network Security Services) so it was not practical as a plugin because it will be a complete browser inside IE

Re:Security? (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510295)

Wouldn't that still leave certain exploits open, though? The rendering engine itself does have some access to the system and memory model, right?

Re:Security? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510425)

Any added code bring new possible security vulnerabilities, but given IE record, I am sure the Webkit/Chrome team is competent enough to fix them when they arise. I prefer this option than using Flash to simulate HTML5 features on IE

Re:Security? (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510925)

This is essentially Google using Webkit as an HTML-5 Working Draft-flavored Adobe Flash. I think this is the same thing Microsoft is doing to other browsers with Silverlight. If it offers developers a stable target and doesn't break the security model, then it should be okay.

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510227)

shattering IE 8's security model

An infinite loop of "ha ha" echoed through my brain as I read this. Thank you for filing your bug report.

Re:Security? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510303)

Think something like:

<object classid="clsid:11111111-2222-3333-4444-555555555555" id="GoogleChromeFrame" width="100%" height="100%" codebase="http://google.com/GoogleChromeFrame.ocx">
<param name="URL" value="http://badgerbadgerbadger.com">
</object>

malevolentjelly is a MS troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510309)

Yuppers.

Re:Security? (2, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510365)

IE6 has a security model?

Re:Security? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510691)

Their implementation here is very important because they may end up simply shattering IE 8's security model and leaving an exploitable hole in users' systems. ... Google better take this very seriously before advertising this on their search and mail pages, etc.

You're right - shattering IE's security model should be left to Microsoft's developers, just like it always has.

Don't stop now! (5, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510043)

I think I see Google starting a new tag... "letmefixthatforyou"

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510055)

Sup Dawg we heard you liked AJAX so we put a browser in yo' browser so you can browse while you browse

In warlock-speak (0, Offtopic)

josteos (455905) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510087)

<zaboo>
Chromed.
</zaboo>

Google's tactic is well known (5, Funny)

Spassoklabanias (1295839) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510109)

First they ignore you..

Then they laugh at you...

Then you make plugins for their browser.

Re:Google's tactic is well known (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510239)

First they ignore you..

Then they laugh at you...

Then you make plugins for their browser.

It's like the three stages of high school relationships, isn't it? Ignore, laugh, plugin.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510121)

Toyota putting its engines in fords
Britannca putting its articles in Wikipedia
Fox newss on CNN

Re:In other news (0, Offtopic)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510253)

Actually the best car ever (which is japanese) is illegal to drive in America.
The reason?

It's too good

I'm not making this up...

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510599)

Actually the best car ever (which is japanese) is illegal to drive in America.
The reason?

It's too good

I'm not making this up...

Perhaps, if it's no too much trouble, could you grace us with the name of this wundercar, and maybe the company that manufactures it?

or more bluntly...
[citation needed]

Re:In other news (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510815)

Why I'm talking about the Nissan Silvia S15 of course!
They hide behind their flaky "emission" excuse, but you know they give a rat's ass about those. It's all just an excuse!

Re:In other news (1)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510581)

Toyota and Ford could easily work together, and haven't been averse to the idea in the past. [msn.com] .

In Australia, under government-sponsored reforms intended to reduce duplication of effort and make the local car industry more sustainable that started in the mid-80s, there was a lot of collaboration between the local GM subsidiary and Nissan and Toyota. The Family II engines, as used in a number of Holden and Opel and Vauxhaul models (sorry, not familar with what they went into in the US), were sold to Nissan for use in various locally-built models. Locally-built Toyotas were badge-engineered and sold as Holdens to fill a small-to-mid-size niche. Holden's Commodore was at one point badge-engineered to become the Toyota Lexcen.

If Ford asked Toyota for engines, they'd probably get them. And that goes both ways.

all your browsers are belong to us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510163)

I don't buy all the google hype- but its a sad day for mighty Microsoft when another company has to improve i.e.

Google is my hero (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510175)

Google is the wind beneath my wings.

Re:Google is my hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510345)

Your mom is the wind beneath my nutsack.

Shi7? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510275)

Never he3ded [goat.cx]

new industry saying: (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510305)

"IE isn't done till Frame won't run."

Is this just a programming exercise? (1, Flamebait)

casings (257363) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510329)

The only people I could see using this are people who aren't allowed to install / use a different web browser. And I highly doubt IT departments that don't allow third party browsers will allow this plugin to be installed. So this seems like a gigantic waste of time.

Re:Is this just a programming exercise? (1)

ducky10 (1622565) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510669)

I think you are missing a large number of users (Grandmas say) who don't customize their computers and only do the minimum : They do only what the computer tells them to do.
So these users will see the plug-in prompt Google Wave [blogspot.com] when accessing Google and would be likely to act.
Doing so will ensure that even Grandma's browser has modern HTML5 features. This will make web developers happier.

It's a defensive move (1)

ducky10 (1622565) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510463)

Google is working on these plugins to ensure their platform has the broadest install-base and give them a way to influence current or future compatibility issues.

This is a pretty smart move for them to maintain and grow their reach. Also - as long as they keep their plug-ins open - a positive move for whole web-app, software as a service 'movement'. (I'm not sure if it's considered a 'movement').

threat to Microsoft (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510493)

Boy, the people at Microsoft must be pissed about this. When Bill Gates "discovered" the internet back in 1994, the first thing he realized is that eventually people were going want to replace Microsoft desktop software with programs that run on the web.

So Microsoft's strategy ever since then has been cripple IE to keep that from happening. That's why IE innovation came to a screeching halt once IE crushed Netscape. And that's why IE runs javascript so poorly, it's not due to bad programing, it's a strategic decision.

Now Google comes up with a new technology, Wave, that out-performs a whole slew of desktop applications, and to help it out adds a plug-in that uncripples IE. What do you bet there will be an IE update in a few weeks that blocks it?

Yeah. Great. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29510565)

So now they have two browsers capable of running chrome, on Windows, but they don't have a single browser running chrome on either of the two operating systems more commonly used within their own company (linux, osx).

Wake me up when they support a better OS...

What's that I hear? (1, Insightful)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510579)

IE's not done till Chrome won't run!

What a good idea (2, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#29510643)

First, sneak your interface into the browser, then you could change the Windows desktop environment, then change the kernel and before you know it we're running 100% open source software.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?