Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Betas Chrome 4, Touts 30% Speed Boost

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Google 383

CWmike writes "Google upgraded the beta version (4.0.223.16) of its Chrome browser yesterday, boasting a 30% speed improvement over the current production edition and adding integrated bookmark synchronization. Developers Idan Avraham and Anton Muhin, who announced the release, tout Chrome 4.0's faster JavaScript rendering speeds. 'We've improved performance scores on Google Chrome by 30% since our current stable release, and by 400% since our first stable release,' they said, referring to Chrome 3.0. The new beta includes the ability to sync bookmarked sites across multiple computers."

cancel ×

383 comments

60% faster loss of privacy (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990090)

I bet google would love to see your bookmarks, I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990140)

1. You're supposed to use tinfoil, not a rope.
2. It's suppose to go over your head, not around your neck.

Codename for Ubuntu 11.04 leaked (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990908)

Ubuntu 11.04: The Nappy Nigger

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990326)

if only you could look at the source* to see that they are not doing that...wait what?

*and if you don't trust them compile your own

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990346)

That would be chromium-browser, chrome itself is a derivative of that, but not Free software.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990882)

Try SRware Iron. It's just Chrome - tracking bits.
 
  Comparison of Chrome Vs Iron [srware.net]

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990898)

Yeah, they slap some Google branding on. That's it. The distinction between Chrome and Chromium is entirely academic (or legal if you prefer). They're functionally equivalent.

If you have a problem using Chrome because it isn't free software, use Chromium. You won't notice a difference other than the branding.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990970)

Youre not allowed to label a compiled version "chrome" AFAIK, but judging by the SRWare Iron team's work, you certainly can compile a full blown chrome-clone with whatever pieces removed and whatever added you want.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990606)

You have sources for Google servers? Oh you!

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990432)

Troll?
For pointing out why google would want to do this?
You would think I had insulted the Cult of Jobs.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (2, Informative)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990448)

That would be Firefox which reveals your bookmarks. By abusing the visited link style, it can conditionally load images depending on whether or not you have visited a specific page. Carpet-bomb enough of those, and you can tell which of the top 5000 websites a user has been to.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990672)

Only if history is enabled, which is always the first thing off on any browser I use.

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990876)

links visited != bookmarks

the links visited are usually a lot more fun

I see google fanboys modded you down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990466)

I won't install anything made by google, the most invasive parasite ever concieved

Re:60% faster loss of privacy (2, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990918)

For the tinfoil hat crowd, theres always SRWare Iron, which is Chrome, with updated webkit, with any google-related tracking removed. You lose site suggestion and auto-update tho, which personally i enjoy.

Yeah? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990942)

Well, fuck you.

Smoking (5, Interesting)

Nithendil (1637041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990136)

Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly. Occasionally the browser will just hang for a second but it makes firefox look like molasses. I have serious reservations about using Google as my search, browser, voicemail, and email but it is difficult when they keep blowing the competition out of the water.

Re:Smoking (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990328)

Slashdot's address is slashdot.org, dummy.

Re:Smoking (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990902)

I'm right there with you. Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality. Other tools may have more users, but it's not because they're better.

I'm not saying we give them a free pass, but have there been any serious breaches of privacy by Google? We've seen dirty moves by Microsoft, we've seen slow moves by Firefox. We've seen silly moves from Yahoo. We've seen invasive moves by Facebook.

I see Google as pretty freaking amazing. I think even the people who take issue with one thing here or there would have to agree that they are definitely the least of all evils.

Password Sync also please (2, Interesting)

James Carnley (789899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990162)

The biggest feature keeping me on Firefox right now is bookmark and password syncing. Xmarks does the job beautifully.

I love the fact that native bookmark syncing will be coming to Chrome, but nobody has mentioned password syncing. This is arguable just as important as bookmark sync and should be possible to release alongside bookmarks in this next release.

I wish they would mention it at least just to know that they are working on it. At the very least I can fallback on the Xmarks version for Chrome that will be available for Chrome 4, but I would much prefer a native solution.

Re:Password Sync also please (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990518)

The biggest feature in Firefox is all those unimportant passwords it remembers.

OpenID might fix that eventually.

Re:Password Sync also please (1)

someSnarkyBastard (1521235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990566)

One small problem with that feature request, how would Google securely store said passwords? (Whether or not you would WANT Google to have access to your passwords is a different discussion entirely)

Presumably Google will password-protect your password storage (using some form of cryptographic identification (eg private/public key pairs) would be nice but it would never happen (stupid users either lose the private key or accidentally leak their private key into the wild)) but that just means a potential attacker needs to know how to use a password cracking tool like THC-Hydra or JohnTheRipper, or leverage a botnet to do the work for him.

I could see this becoming a major target for botnet masters:

1 crack some sap's password-sync using botnet to distribute lockouts over several hundred IP addresses

2 grab any banking or finance-related password pairs

3 drain 'em dry

4 ???

5 profit.

6 GOTO 1

Re:Password Sync also please (1)

James Carnley (789899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990614)

Keep in mind that Xmarks already does this as well as Opera Link.

Xmarks encrypts the passwords using a key only you know and they presumably use a pretty good form of encryption.

Your argument is basically that nothing is secure so don't even try it. With that attitude pretty much nothing in tech would ever be done. Most banks don't even let you store the password. I know Bank of America doesn't since I have to type it in each time. For the rest of the forums and websites I visit it is nice to have it stored and ready to be used as it saves me time. It is my choice to store my passwords and run the risk of them being broken. You can continue typing in everything by hand.

Re:Password Sync also please (1)

someSnarkyBastard (1521235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990846)

I'd trust a local encrypted password file that I can import and export, but I wouldn't trust a third party with my passwords.

Re:Password Sync also please (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990976)

But if you give google your passwords, they'll be able to use their world-renowned search technology to spend your money for you on the online merchandise their algorithms deem you most likely to enjoy!

Cheating on my first love - Firefox (4, Informative)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990200)

I so loved Firefox and use to tell everyone to use it. I loved that it kicked IE's ass. Gotta love any open source project that goes up against Microsoft and wins.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can no longer stand to use Firefox. Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex, Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.

In fact, it seems way too fast. Is Google caching the web pages in a nearby Google server? Even sites that use little JavaScript seem to load really fast. Is something going on here?

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990308)

It's snappy but the lack of plugins like NoScript, Adblock Plus, Firebug, and numerous others is what kills it for me. So I stick with Firefox and the 3.6 beta isn't bad at all.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

brentonboy (1067468) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990806)

How can you trust [adblockplus.org] NoScript anymore though? It really ought to be removed from the list of essential plugins.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990948)

Because it works.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (4, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991026)

What is with people whining about AdBlock all the time? OH NOES TEH ADZ@!1!One. Is it really that big a deal? Thanks to my Slashdot obsession and excellent karma, I have the option to disable ads on Slashdot natively, but I don't even use the option. Why do people care so much about little images trying to sell things?

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990330)

Yes, less features.

Firefox is bloated now. Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time. Start adding all the 'must have' extensions that geeks use and Firefox REALLY starts to suck ass performance wise.

Couple in that Mozilla has seriously lost its focus and is too busy inventing more crap rather than making Firefox run properly. Mozilla building something like Breakpad/Socorro makes sense, adding crap like new font formats when they already support ones that are more than capable and MORE open is.

Chrome doesn't have a bunch of crap to tweak, doesn't support everything and the kitchen sink. You get far less features from Chrome and more speed.

You decide which one is more important for you. Me, I take Chrome for web browsing, Firefox for a mutli-OS development platform where speed isn't as noticeable.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990462)

> Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time

You think chrome is faster because it has less features? Your deep knowledge from studying the application architecture and using profilers tells you this? Or is it the typical desperate need of slashdotters to be relevant that they scoff at everything and tear anything and everything down without knowing why?

You people are like grumpy old men without even the benefit of the wisdom that you'd accidentally pick up with age.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

MaliciousSmurf (960366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990818)

Care to enlighten us, then?

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990886)

> Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time

You think chrome is faster because it has less features? Your deep knowledge from studying the application architecture and using profilers tells you this? Or is it the typical desperate need of slashdotters to be relevant that they scoff at everything and tear anything and everything down without knowing why?

You people are like grumpy old men without even the benefit of the wisdom that you'd accidentally pick up with age.

Sort of like niggers who have been born and raised in the USA for over 200 years and still can't handle proper English? Well, I guess they're more like Jabba the Hut. They can understand English when it's spoken to them, but they cannot speak it themselves.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990910)

The ridiculousness of this post is, of course, that webkit is getting features at a crazy pace, mostly driven by Apple wanting to get as much native support for stuff that could be done in javascript (so it runs fast on the iphone), and everyone else (google, apple, etc etc) who is behind the "html5!!" drumbeat.

look at bugzilla for webkit and you'll see an even match for mozilla in terms of adding features. you'll see the same parity (or worse) in RAM and CPU time (what happened to the decrying of process/tab?).

now, there is a much better argument to be made about gecko's antiquated architecture. webkit's source is a joy to browse, comparatively. there are several kitchen sinks in webkit, but someone did a nice refactor and they all derive from one water-dispensing receptacle superclass.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (3, Insightful)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990966)

I actually get more value out of the addons in Firefox than the speed boost in Chrome. This is mainly because I usually open a bunch of links in new tabs first, and then go through and read them. In this situation, speed isn't that important.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (2, Informative)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990998)

Yes, less features.

I don't completely buy that argument. On my setup, even gimp-2.6 cold-starts faster than FF 3.5.4, and gimp seems to be pretty featureful. FF and Thunderbird are the slowest apps I use, and presumably they share some code. That tells me there's something really wrong with how Mozilla is writing or deploying their programs.

Not only is FF slow, but it uses amazing amounts of memory. I can't understand what it's doing with all that memory, because it's obviously not using it to cache stuff to make it faster. Or if it is, it's failing. In the very least, I find it amazing that even after all these years, it's still noticeably leaky.

Actually, I've noticed FF seems to be zippier on Windows, so maybe Mozilla just struggles with with Linux port... Regardless, after chromium grows up a little bit more, I'll also probably be leaving FF.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

linuxgeek64 (1246964) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990334)

Pages with little/no JavaScript render faster than those that have much... Why would you think that JavaScript-less sites render faster?

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

MaliciousSmurf (960366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990824)

He might mean the relative speed of rendering between chrome and firefox? Not sure.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (2, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990370)

I get annoyed when I try to scroll a window in Chrome and it's so fast I can't control it easily.

I'll be keeping firefox around for as long as there's no adblock and no flashblock for Chrome. Chrome wins the instant they're compatible with Mozilla plugins.

I'm glad that there's once again some vibrant competition in the browser sphere.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990530)

I'll be keeping firefox around for as long as there's no adblock and no flashblock for Chrome.

Adsweep [userscripts.org] and BlockFlash2 [userscripts.org] are the Chrome equivalents, respectively.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990616)

BlockFlash2 isn't as pretty as the Flashblock userscript [userscripts.org] , but works somewhat better. For some reason, certain Flash elements still get through though (whereas in Firefox, the same userscripts seem to block reliably). Keep an eye on Issue 26638 [google.com] .

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (3, Funny)

L0wt3ch (1671302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990460)

I disagree, Firefox is perfect,

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

tukia (1375091) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990526)

I'm sure you could have a look into the code and figure out how it does it since it's open-sourced? ;)

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (3, Interesting)

Judinous (1093945) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990532)

No matter how good Chrome's JavaScript performance gets, it will never be faster, more reliable, or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all. Blocking all JavaScript by default, with the ability to individually white-list individual items (close, but not quite, Opera), is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing. Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed (not just benchmarks) than any other single change. Until another browser implements these two features, Firefox is the only rational option for home browsing.

I'm not a Firefox fanboy, I'm just aware of my needs. In the business arena, I wouldn't recommend anything but Internet Explorer (behind a proxy, of course), because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments. That's another area that I wish more browsers would improve upon.

If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature sets along with their superior rendering performance, they would blow the web browser market wide open. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet, since most technical people are well aware of these issues.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (1)

Myrcutio (1006333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990648)

the only holdout that IE can still claim is activex. Between SSH and the plain html web portals, most needs are covered.

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990744)

Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex, Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.

You like fast sex? I prefer it to last...

Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990852)

You must be a woman.

Really Fast (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990256)

With it Google news is showing articles of next week.

Re:Really Fast (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990570)

I'm on Debian, you insensitive clod. For some reason, the only articles I actually see are from two years ago.

Love to use it, but... (1, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990276)

...I use a Mac. How is it possible that it is in its 4th version, but there's still no Mac version of the browser?

This is like the situation with Google Earth which only eventually showed up in a Mac version a few years after the Windows version.

Sucks To Be You (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990300)

You were dumb enough to buy an overpriced, niche platform.

Deal with it.

Re:Sucks To Be You (0, Offtopic)

trickotomy (947120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990348)

Say what you will, but it is nice having an OS that is *tightly* coupled with the hardware -- it cuts way down on poorly written drivers that are responsible for many of the BSOD in MS land. It is a premium to pay, but the frustration spared is well worth it.

Re:Sucks To Be You (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990958)

Say what you will, but it is nice having an OS that is *tightly* coupled with the hardware -- it cuts way down on poorly written drivers that are responsible for many of the BSOD in MS land. It is a premium to pay, but the frustration spared is well worth it.

Ah yes the "blame it on the drivers" apologetic for various Windows issues. It's the perfect excuse, really, because it's difficult to falsify. So I'll ask you this: how, pray tell, do you explain how properly-installed Linux has its rock-solid stability on such a wide variety of hardware? If indeed the support of a wide variety of commodity PC hardware is the cause of instability, and if the Mac is so stable because it has such a comparatively narrow range of hardware to support, what would be your answer to that question?

Note, my question was about Windows. I don't dispute that the Mac is quite stable. I just believe it's stable because it's based on Unix and Unix had this kind of stability long before Apple decided to use it. Apple was just smart enough to recognize that and smarter still to put a pretty and usable GUI on top of it. It's the "faulty drivers" excuse for Windows that I don't quite buy, and mostly because I've never received an answer to that question that made sense.

Re:Sucks To Be You (0)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990378)

Niche? That all depends on your industry/area of research.

Re:Sucks To Be You (3, Funny)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990468)

That all depends on your industry/area of research.

ah, i see, it depends on your niche...

Re:Love to use it, but... (1)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990310)

Yeah, it's a shame. I'd love to see official versions for both Mac and Linux as soon as possible.

This really reminds me of Skype. The Skype version for Windows is ages ahead of the ones on Mac and Linux. I had to use Skype on a Windows computer, and I was blown away by the interface changes and features. Let's hope that Chrome doesn't become that.

Granted, at least Google is working a Mac version. There are even development builds that can be downloaded. I don't think it's anywhere near beta quality, though. Hopefully this doesn't mean that by version 6 of Chrome for Windows, Mac users will be rewarded with Chrome 1 for Mac :-P

Re:Love to use it, but... (5, Informative)

ltmon (729486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990336)

FYI, nightly builds for all platforms (Mac, Win, Linux, Linux x64) available here: http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/ [chromium.org]

Should get official versions soon, I guess, but I find any given nightly build (on Linux) fast and reliable.

Re:Love to use it, but... (1)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990480)

skype on windows has become a piece of shit! The linux version does everything except for SMS messages and hasn't become a UI nightmare. let's keep it that way

Re:Love to use it, but... (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990340)

I am using it right now on a Mac. You just have to google "chrome developer mac" to get a download link. Or you can just go here. Anyway, it is fast and works well. It does not integrate with MacOS the way it should - but they are working on it. Overall I am very impresses as I like it more then Firefox.

Re:Love to use it, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990384)

Don't know why slashdot ignored the link... Oh well, here it is:

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=Mac [google.com]

But I guess there are bugs.. (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990428)

I tried to post the above in Chrome but it failed to work. The Submit button just kept on saying to try again later. So I then tried in Safari. The Submit button still did not work but it did display a countdown. This countdown was not visible in the Mac version of Chrome.

So I guess I'm saying that if you use the Mac version be prepared for some issues.

Re:But I guess there are bugs.. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990608)

I get broken interaction from slashcode all the time in firefox. The problem may not be Chrome.

Re:Love to use it, but... (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990354)

demand? won't most of these features get ported to safari anyway?

Re:Love to use it, but... (3, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990374)

http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/ [chromium.org]

Which can be found by visiting:

http://www.google.com/search?q=chromium+mac+download [google.com]

Imagine that.

I stopped bothering with Chromium, Safari isn't different enough to justify the instability of Chromium for me.

Re:Love to use it, but... (5, Funny)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990436)

Mac

Hello PC, Whats that you have there?

PC

Oh this? Its Google Chrome and its faster than IE and Firefox.

Mac

But it still gives you viruses and spyware right?

PC

Oh Mac, you're such a brainwashed little cunt.

PC (Cont'd)

Look, it uses WebKit, the same stupid thing your Safari browser uses. Happy now?

Mac

Sort of. I'm a Mac and I want it my way. I want Google Chrome now!

Mac (Cont'd)

PC... give that to me.

PC

You know Mac...You could just buy a PC, or at the very least boot windows on your over priced PC hardware.

Mac

But then I will get viruses...

(PC Throws his arms up and walks away)

PC

I give up.

Re:Love to use it, but... (4, Funny)

JasonMaloney101 (1307905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990784)

Anyone else have the commercial's traditional piano tune playing in their head while they read this?

Re:Love to use it, but... (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990978)

lol, yes I did.

Re:Love to use it, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990508)

Hrmm support 5% or support 90%, I really hope you can do the math on that. How can you even think that you should be considered an equal citizen? Go cry to Apple to make a browser that doesn't suck. Where has innovation been with Safari?

Re:Love to use it, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990556)

Because Google is a PC and didn't pay $2000. :)

Where is your god now?

Re:Love to use it, but... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990578)

...I use a Mac. How is it possible that it is in its 4th version, but there's still no Mac version of the browser?

This is like the situation with Google Earth which only eventually showed up in a Mac version a few years after the Windows version.

Well, I whined about that too for quite a while - I'd try other browsers but couldn't leave Firefox, despite it's issues on the Mac, but kept pining for something better. But now I've finally switched over to Safari plus a couple plugins (ClickToFlash and Glims) instead, and am reasonably happy. As far as HTML rendering goes, Chrome won't be any faster obviously. It's possible Javascript rendering will be faster, but I wouldn't bet on it - Safari 4's Javascript engine runs circles around Firefox 3.5's (yes that's totally subjective).

I imagine, since Safari and Chrome are both Webkit-based, a Mac version is just not a priority for the guys down in Mountain View. So basically I've just given up on them.

Re:Love to use it, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990844)

Yes yes, now convince Apple to make safari not suck (I had to enable an IE 5 workaround in apache to fix safari's broken keepalive that caused safari to show blank pages if you clicked "too fast"). Until then, Chrome's webkit means it's everything safari is, but with network code that doesn't have 10 year old bugs in it.

Re:Love to use it, but... (2, Informative)

Temporal (96070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990728)

You mean this? [google.com]

(It's dev channel [chromium.org] , meaning it's still a little finicky, but it is good enough to be my primary browser on Mac.)

Re:Love to use it, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29991004)

Google focuses its efforts on real computers, not toys......

100% less advertisements would be nice... (1, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990314)

No AdBlock, No mouse gestures... No Chrome :)

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990394)

google is an advertising company, I think satan will be wearing snowshoes before google puts in Ad blocking.

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990520)

I know. Perhaps this is the real reason Chrome even exists. They can prevent people from blocking ads, and of course track peoples surfing habits.

Quite sad actually. The browser is pretty nice overall. Its too bad they will most likely treat their users like most corporations do... like shit.

Firefox is much better in this area. As if that needed to be said.

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990694)

You realize Firefox has exactly the same level of sending-data-to-google as Chrome does, right?

Anyway, what's with people assuming malice on the part of Google? The guys who write Chrome are just people who did it because they wanted to build a better browser. They're probably regular slashdot users, come to that. They're just people.

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990912)

Yes of course. My point was that... with their own browser, they can strictly dictate it however they want. For example not allowing you to block ads, or perhaps more intrusive features.

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29991012)

Google Chrome is released under open-source licenses. With open source, there is no "their" browser. You're free to start a fork with support for ad-blocking and remove the super-secret Google code that sends pr0n surfing habits to Google.

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990780)

I don't care about Google ads, just all of the flashing obtrusive crap. The fact that I have to block* google ads to prevent that other stuff is in my eyes unfortunate, since they don't annoy me and help support the publishers of content that I like (not to mention support Google, who pretty much owns my entire digital life)

*I'm sure I could adjust the filterset somehow to whitelist text-based adsense, but I'm too damn lazy to do it once, never mind across all of my systems.

Re:100% less advertisements would be nice... (5, Interesting)

Temporal (96070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990936)

I know. Perhaps this is the real reason Chrome even exists. They can prevent people from blocking ads, and of course track peoples surfing habits.

Actually, Chrome 4.0 has extensions, and multiple ad blockers have already been written using the system, without being stopped by Google.

Quite sad actually. The browser is pretty nice overall. Its too bad they will most likely treat their users like most corporations do... like shit.

Actually, we're a little bit smarter than that. As it turns out, treating users "like shit" -- for example, by crippling our products just to drive away the small minority of users that run ad blockers -- is actually not profitable. On the other hand, making the internet better for users, in general, is profitable to us, since it directly leads to more usage of other Google products. Which is why Eric (the CEO) frequently tells employees, in plain terms, that we should be doing whatever we can think of to improve the internet for users, without worrying about how to monetize it -- in the long term, this approach is far more profitable than being dicks.

(This post is my personal opinion -- I am not authorized to speak for Google.)

Plugin support (1, Redundant)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990332)

Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator, no chrome here.

Re:Plugin support (2, Informative)

Temporal (96070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990696)

Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator, no chrome here.

So run the dev channel [chromium.org] . It has extensions [google.com] today. Yes, including ad blockers [adsweep.org] . Dev channel is actually perfectly usable if you don't mind the occasional disembodied head taking the place of a button [google.com] . Dev channel Chrome has been my primary browser for over a year now.

Fast, even on Slashdot (3, Interesting)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990366)

The annoyingly slow preview scripts here on Slashdot, that appear to bring Firefox to its knees, take very little time at all to run. Now we can finally enjoy Slashdot with its annoying web 2.0 features. Thanks, Google!

JIT javascript (3, Interesting)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990382)

I learned something interesting about Google's javascript parser while evaluating various parsers as potential candidates for a scripting engine in an application. The reason it's so fast? It's got a JIT compiler [nikkeibp.co.jp] , just like modern Java runtimes. This means that once things get going, JavaScript is going to approach native code speed. Unfortunately it also limits the platforms on which the engine can run. Google is targeting x86 (of course) and ARM (naturally, since they've got their eyes on the mobile market). Interesting times...

Re:JIT javascript (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990678)

Everybody already knew that. Fuck off back to digg, loser.

Re:JIT javascript (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990788)

Uh, they all have JIT compilers (TraceMonkey in Firefox).

Almost every scripting language does these days. If you're looking at embedding scripting languages then look no further than Lua. It's super small and easy to embed, fast, easy API for extending, and similar semantics to Javascript (except way better). Also, LuaJIT 2 beta just came out a few days ago and it's kicking all kinds of ass as far as performance in scripting languages go (rewriting the book in fact)..

Re:JIT javascript (4, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991000)

Spidermonkey (the ECMAScript implementation in Gecko, hence in Firefox) and Nitro (aka SFX Extreme, the ECMAScript implementation in Safari) both use JITs as well.

> just like modern Java runtimes

Not quite; the tradeoffs are somewhat different.

> JavaScript is going to approach native code speed

Somewhat. Depends on your jit, on your code, etc.

How about (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990632)

Doing something that makes firefox addons compatible with Chrome ? I mean its so fast, even if the addons slow it down somewhat it may still be faster than firefox.

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990810)

You mean, by rewriting Chrome completely?

Speed is nice, but lets get some basic features (5, Interesting)

pyrico (1034804) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990778)

I really wish they would put at least one developer on getting some of their basic features requests done.

For example, I wanted to use Chrome as my HTPC browser as it does a good job scaling it's plugins to the system 2x DPI (unlike Firefox where flash applets are tiny squares in big dark frames they are supposed to fill).

But Chrome does not save the full page zoom setting! Every time you open a tab or browser instance you have to Ctr + which becomes unusable. It has not browser-wide options related to full page zoom and their font options are confusing and seem to make no effect.

Worse is the how easy it is to fine lots [google.com] and lots [google.com] and lots [google.com] and lots [google.com] of people complaining about this on their own help forums without a single response from the developers.

I know they are avoiding feature creep and keeping things slim, but even by a 80/20 rule, this kind of thing should be picked up (and could even replace their useless font settings dialog).

Is it 30% faster? Does it matter? (1, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990822)

I think it's kind of depressing that a 30% speed increase in JavaScript processing is actually something which is interesting to talk about. Are web pages seriously doing that much fucking JavaScript that it's even PERCEPTIBLE to the user? That making it 30% faster actually makes somebody's day suck a little less? That's sad. Sad, sad, sad.

Re:Is it 30% faster? Does it matter? (1)

Austin Schuh (1174389) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990922)

Considering that it will sometimes take my computer 30 seconds to deal with all the javascript when I view a poll, I'd say yes. Funny that you post that websites don't use much JavaScript on a website that obviously uses a lot of it.

Re:Is it 30% faster? Does it matter? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990938)

That isn't something I've noticed here, and I'm curious as to what your experimental method was in determining that (seriously, not sarcastic)

Re:Is it 30% faster? Does it matter? (1)

Austin Schuh (1174389) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991024)

I was able to reproduce it a moment ago by viewing all the posts for the Favorite Editor poll.

In the process, Firefox 3.5.3 asked me twice "A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete." and I hit continue both times in order to get it to load. My CPU was pegged once the initial part of the page loaded until the page finished loading.

Re:Is it 30% faster? Does it matter? (1)

Temporal (96070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991018)

This is a common mistake developers make -- they think "Do users really care if this page loads a tenth of a second faster? It's such a short time that it should make no difference". In reality, though, such performance improvements make things "feel" better. You will spend more time on a site or in an app that responds faster, because you will enjoy using it more, even if you don't realize why.

Also, the faster Javascript is, the more of it sites can use in the future -- hopefully for improving their user experience.

Version 4.0 beta (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990984)

So by this time next year, they'll be on, what, 12.0?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...