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!

Looking At Google's Flashified Chrome

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the inevitable-compromise dept.

Google 385

An anonymous reader writes "Google quietly released a new beta version of its Chrome browser, which not only blows its rivals out of the water as far as performance is concerned, but comes with half a dozen new features, including direct integration of Adobe Flash. First benchmarks show that the new beta is about 10% faster than the previous beta in the SunSpider and V8 benchmark, and about 30% faster than Chrome 4, which remains the fastest JavaScript browser available today."

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

Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (0, Redundant)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097676)

Because if it can't....

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097692)

Of course it can. It would take you about 5 seconds to google that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chrome+adblock [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097798)

AdBlock is the least important of the 3. I used to run it, but can't be bothered any more.

NoScript is the deal breaker. Chrome has a clunky way to turn JavaScript on and off, It even looks like it has the ability to manage blacklist/whitelist. If it could add the ability to manage the exception list while you are looking at the page (without diving into menus) the way NoScript does, then I would switch to chrome in a heartbeat.

Otherwise, not so much.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098180)

Absolutely. NoScript is all the magic.

But think about it: you want NoScript from Google, considering that Chrome's only real claim-to-fame is to run JavaScript faster than everyone else.

For me, the only actual temptation to use Chrome is to get the independent processes in each tab, and the next version of Firefox will have that.

I would argue that Firefox with NoScript is faster than Chrome with scripts. Not rendering the crap at all makes for a much better web experience for both me and my browser.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098222)

The next version of Firefox with have plugins in a seperate process. The rest of the project is still going to take some more time.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis [mozilla.org]

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098496)

But think about it: you want NoScript from Google, considering that Chrome's only real claim-to-fame is to run JavaScript faster than everyone else.

Why would that prevent me from deciding whose scripts I want to run? I run Chromium, and I would very much like to have NoScript. With that said, it seems like all that is needed on top of functionality recently added to chrome [techie-buzz.com] is a bit of GUI.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098240)

If it could add the ability to manage the exception list while you are looking at the page (without diving into menus) the way NoScript does, then I would switch to chrome in a heartbeat.

It already has that. Small icons appear to the right of the entry bar when cookies or scripts are blocked. You can click the icon to turn on scripts or cookies for the domain.

More info and screenshots at my web site [ath0.com] .

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (2, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098588)

NoScript is the deal breaker. Chrome has a clunky way to turn JavaScript on and off, It even looks like it has the ability to manage blacklist/whitelist. If it could add the ability to manage the exception list while you are looking at the page (without diving into menus) the way NoScript does, then I would switch to chrome in a heartbeat.

I wonder if Chrome extensions can now manipulate said white/blacklist, like Chrome 5 indeed now has for both pictures, javascript (for Noscript-like functionality), and plugins (for Flashblock-like functionality)? It even does simple pattern-matching to block entire sub/domains... Seems like a wasted effort if there's no better UI than this however.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098120)

Which part of the word 'and' is confusing you?

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

egnop (531002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098136)

I hope the op means AdBlock+ (not hiding like adblock does, but not even downloading the ad like adblock+ does)

Because afaik the Plus version of adblock isn't available yet for chrome

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

DarkAudit (975261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098410)

It doesn't, and that's why I dumped it. Chrome is susceptible to attacks like js:prontexi via poisoned ads that the user doesn't need to click on or even mouseover. The ad loads, the script runs, and if your antivirus is less than what it should be, you're toast. Even folks surfing the New York Times have been hit with this particular virus. The average user isn't going to catch on that the site they visited had nothing to do with what happened. But they will tell all their friends that "I went to so-and-so's site and got a virus." The Times has the resources to recover from that hit on their reputation, but what about some web forum struggling already to find a niche? A mom-and-pop retail/repair outlet in some strip mall somewhere?

Chrome can't be trusted as long as they insist on fetching ads from adservers that can't be trusted to get *their* house in order.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (4, Insightful)

darrylo (97569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098262)

Chrome's adblock is nowhere near as good as firefox's, because chrome's is really an ad hider, and not an ad blocker. Chrome still downloads all of the ads, with all of the assorted performance and privacy issues.

Yes, yes, I know that people have been saying that this will be fixed someday, but I'll believe that when I see it. Google has a lot of incentive to disallow this and other features.

And, as others have said, lack of noscript is a deal breaker.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097702)

Adblock is freely available from the Google Chrome website fro christs sake. Even easylist and a more or less hidden option to turn ON Google text adds.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (4, Informative)

pitdingo (649676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098322)

problem is Adblock on Chrome does not block ads, it only hides them. All the ads still get loaded and all their tracking scripts still track you and run in the background.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (2, Interesting)

multi io (640409) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098162)

The main reason for needing flashblock in FF is that the flash plugin tends to lock up the whole browser on a regular basis, so you want to run the plugin only when needed to minimize the probability of that happening. Chrome runs the plugin in its own process, so the probability of Flash locking up the browser is zero to begin with. Ever since I started using Chrome, I have an icon in my freaking task bar that runs ps axu | grep libflashplayer | grep $LOGNAME | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill. Apart from Chrome itself, that icon is the single greatest productivity booster I've installed in years.

Re:Can it run adblock, flashblock and noscript? (2, Interesting)

shadowknot (853491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098274)

Chrome runs the plugin in its own process, so the probability of Flash locking up the browser is zero to begin with.

That's like saying the Titanic can't sink because the sealing bulkheads are part of the ship itself. All that happens is that the water overflows the compartments and the whole ship sinks. Such is the case with this, you said yourself that you have a taskbar icon to kill an unresponsive flash plugin process. Surely if the plugin is coded into the browser when that part of the program fails the entire browser will lock up and you'll have to kill chrome rather than just libflashplugin. I can't see this being a good thing.

Thanks Google! (0, Troll)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097682)

You provide HTML5 for your Chrome, Apple does't support it. It is about to die and nobody uses Flash for anything serious but YouTube use...

Fsck you!

*Writing form Rekonq*

Re:Thanks Google! (5, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097802)

Hmmm...I think saying that Flash is "about to die" and that "nobody uses Flash for anything serious" is...well...wrong.

As it stands now, Flash is, by far, the most popular and ubiquitous plug-in in use on the internet. It is used in many different places and can be relied on more than trying to rely on the fact that users will have new, up-to-date browsers. Yes, Apple won't be supporting Flash, and, yes, I hope HTML5 replaces a great deal of Flash (as I can't stand plug-ins). But, in no way is Flash going the way of the dodo anytime soon. Heck, even to get everybody to switch to HTML5 is going to take at least a few years, and probably more.

Re:Thanks Google! (4, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097860)

If YouTube would switch perma to HTML5 vid, the very second about 60% of the world is going to want to have it running.

It is not new: YouTube already stopped supporting IE6 and it is... not working anymore =D

Re:Thanks Google! (0, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098016)

Why would YouTube want to destroy their image by bullying its users? It would affect what they think about them - people aren't retards you know.

On top of that all the HTML5 video players are clunky and so is YouTube's current one too. It would also mean H.264 victory over Theora, since YouTube is currently using H.264 with their HTML5 player. Not that Theora will still win anyway.

Re:Thanks Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098040)

=D

XD

LOL!!1~

Re:Thanks Google! (2, Interesting)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098080)

That's exactly my point. YouTube *won't* switch to HTML5 completely - at least not yet. Too much of the world is still using browsers that don't support HTML5. While I'm sure Google engineers would love to have to not support Flash, it doesn't make sense for them to just dump it. They want as many eyes as possible on their websites - particularly YouTube. This is, in my opinion, exactly why Flash was integrated in with the Chrome browser. It ensures that every person who uses Chrome will be able to see Flash websites, thus improving the overall web-browsing experience of its users. As Google is a company who is investing heavily into the web (understatement of the year), it is only smart for them to support as many users as possible.

In addition, the integration of Flash also allows Chrome developers to do some neat tricks to better sandbox Flash (as it is a primary source of security issues, followed by Javascript) which further increases the security of the Chrome browser. Of course, one could argue that they could not include Flash at all and really increase the security of their browser, but, see my previous point. Therefore, they are taking a proactive approach and including Flash, but doing it so that security is heightened around it.

Re:Thanks Google! (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098304)

BTW, funny thing with dropping ie6 on yt - I have one old machine around here, on which I keep also an older Opera version, 9.27 (typically works even better than recent releases on ram restricted machine). Recently, around the time of changes which supposedly broke ie6, I noticed that this old version suddenly started working better on yt... (and I doubt it was tested / optimized for; it will be quite cute if, with sites going more and more towards proper web standards, this old Opera will continue to "improve" ;p )

Re:Thanks Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098428)

I still use ie6 because of some ancient web apps for work which only run in ie6. I also use youtube. Except for the annoying banners that say I use an outdated browser, I haven't run into a single issue with youtube. Granted my youtube watching is limited to a couple videos a week, and I might just be lucky.

Just Apple Fanboys Parroting Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098022)

If Flash didn't give users and developers the freedom to get around Apple and Jobs' absurd app store restrictions and Apple getting a cut of every sale it would be a non-issue.

If Flash somehow was useful for Apple and Jobs to enforce their crazy ass control they would be babbling about how 'Flash runs best on Apple products' and how 'it just feels better' on Apple hardware.

And if Jobs walked up on stage and announced that his farts smell the best the same idiots running their mouths off about Flash would be instead furiously claiming Steve Jobs' farts smell better than anything else in the world.

NOT Just Apple Fanboys Parroting Jobs (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098388)

I think you'll find that while a large proportion of the vocal Flash haters are parrots for Jobs (Apple zealots seem pretty vocal on all issues even remotely Apple related), there are also a lot of others who dislike flash because it's proprietary or because they dislike plug-ins (those people will probably like this news up to a point) or because it's a CPU hog or whatever.

Re:Thanks Google! (3, Interesting)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098070)

Which is also why I must have a flashblocker plugin - flash is responsible for most of the extremely annoying, distracting dancing baloney [netlingo.com] out there.

Re:Thanks Google! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098244)

So when developers start making the same "extremely annoying, distracting dancing baloney" stuff using HTML5/Javascript, what then?

uh, noscript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098524)

And the more open nature of Javascript would allow greater control over what you filter.

Also, if I have to put up with annoying dancing crap, I'd at least like it based on an open standard.

Re:Thanks Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098432)

Hmmm...I think saying that Flash is "about to die" and that "nobody uses Flash for anything serious" is...well...wrong.

It might be wrong, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of us from thinking flash is a steaming pile of shit that should never have been allowed to exist.

If I hit a web-site and it requires me to use flash to look at some stupid fucking interface, I will immediately decide I don't need that site.

I simply don't install flash on my machines. Personally, I'd like to see flash wiped out of existence.

Re:Thanks Google! (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098064)

[...] nobody uses Flash for anything serious but YouTube use...

You mean you consider YouTube use as something serious?

Yay for Google (0, Offtopic)

MountainMan101 (714389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097686)

Google are simply the best. They've given me free e-mail, free browser, free phone OS, free maps, and so much more.

If only everyone was as wonderful as Google. What a shame I can't vote for them in tomorrow's election.

Re:Yay for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097710)

Agreed!

We give our blood and souls to you Google!

Does it still spy on you (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097760)

Since google merged the google-bar and URL bar into one, it sends all your browsing to google does it not? If so, I really wonder why people use this.

Re:Does it still spy on you (2, Informative)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097794)

if no protocol is defines (say "http://") then their browser uses the default search engine. Of course this is Google by default, but it is realy easily changeable. Chrome (not Chromium!) asks you what search engine you want to use on the firts run.

After a while this one bar gets adiciting!

Re:Does it still spy on you (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097974)

I think GP is confused by the browser sending what you type in the omnibar to Google for search and url suggestions. If you're not comfortable with this (I find it quite useful) you can turn it off in Options. And of course it is always off in incognito mode.

I think it does spy on you (0, Redundant)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097988)

Every keystroke in the address bar is sent to google by default according to microsoft [slashdot.org] . How else are they supposed to do google-suggest?

Re:Does it still spy on you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098148)

Does it still install in the user profile folder (%LOCALAPPDATA%) on Windows?

Chrome has to be the only application I've ever seen (other than spyware) to install executable content in the profile directories.
I liken it to putting binaries in the /etc/ directory on *nix platforms in terms of rareness.

Re:Yay for Google (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097808)

Free....so long as your privacy is worth nothing.

Re:Yay for Google (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098266)

Firefox uses Google by default for search and suggestion.

IE uses Bing.

I trust Google infinitely more than I trust Microsoft. And if you're really paranoid, then run Iron, which is a privacy-freak version of Chromium. But if that isn't enough, Google added tons of privacy features into Chrome/Chromium starting with version 5.

But keep wearing that tin-foil hat.

Re:Yay for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098536)

Free....so long as your privacy is worth nothing.

So your problem is.... what? That partial URLs, when typed manually, if you selected Google as your default search, if you leave predictive search on, will be .... wait for it ... searched on. Of course, that assumes you're not using private browsing mode.

Yeah, I don't know how such violations of privacy can be brooked. What's that? AT&T is installing an upgraded tap to send all of my data to the NSA? Well, Google isn't involved, so it sounds legit.

Re:Yay for Google (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098436)

You don't have to vote for them, they already have the power.

Should be a new iPhone App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097700)

Apple should allow it to become available in the App store.

OMG! Including direct integration of Adobe Flash!! (4, Funny)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097722)

When will it be available for my iPhone & iPad?

Re:OMG! Including direct integration of Adobe Flas (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097814)

It ships with Flash, but Flash will never become available for you iPod/iPhone/iPad... ever. Forget it...

Re:OMG! Including direct integration of Adobe Flas (2, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098134)

Sense of humour failure, mods?
More seriously, I'm sure that this is one of many ways that Google will use to drive adoption of Android & Chrome/web-interface.
You wanna Flash? We havva Flash! And all the funny Flash videos you can eat!!
Until they're big enough to 'fuck off' Adobe, that is, just like MSFT & Apple are trying to do.
Of course, the hope is that the 'not evil' boys will achieve this with open, standards-based stuff instead of, for example, Silverlight.

Re:OMG! Including direct integration of Adobe Flas (1, Redundant)

Mage99 (323524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098270)

Might be a work around if you can use the browser in iPhone and iPad
if the integration with flash is tight enough and the iPhone/iPad OS doesn't recognize the process
as flash due to the integration. So in other words the browser would have to mask the flash execution as some "other" software process not flash,
essentially hiding it from the OS?

Re:OMG! Including direct integration of Adobe Flas (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098340)

Interesting point. Of course, just as soon as someone got that working, the app would be banned from the iStore.

Re:OMG! Including direct integration of Adobe Flas (1)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098596)

The iphone and ipad version will come bundled with duke nukem.

I could really use proper CSS3 multicolumn support (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097736)

So much flakiness in the WebKit support of CSS multi-column layout... don't even know where to begin. Firefox is much farther ahead in this case.

Eventually DIVs are going to have to go away completely, so that all HTML is semantic.

Re:I could really use proper CSS3 multicolumn supp (4, Funny)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097932)

So much flakiness in the WebKit support of CSS multi-column layout... don't even know where to begin. Firefox is much farther ahead in this case.

Eventually DIVs are going to have to go away completely, so that all HTML is semantic.

Silence! Real web users spend all day continually refreshing the ACID3 test. Nothing else matters.

Its just not the fastest browser... (1, Insightful)

sumdewd (1804926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097768)

The most casual of testing of Opera 10.53 on my own C2D e8400 just yielded a Sunspider result of... "Total: 312.0ms +/- 13.9%" If speed is such an important marketing factor then why aren't we hearing more about opera?

Re:Its just not the fastest browser... (3, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097896)

The most casual of testing of Opera 10.53 on my own C2D e8400 just yielded a Sunspider result of...
  "Total: 312.0ms +/- 13.9%"

If speed is such an important marketing factor then why aren't we hearing more about opera?

I don't really like Opera and don't use it because of my UI preferences, but about six months ago when I last compared html (not javascript) rendering speeds, Opera was the only browser that could smoothly scroll through the large text and image laden pages I used as benchmarks. Safari was the slowest, skipping entire screens of content as it experienced rendering hiccups, and Chrome (I tested Chrome 3) was pretty bad too. I tried Chrome 4 later and saw a lot of improvement, but it still didn't have the performance of Opera. This was all on an i7 system.

I'm hoping a newer version of Chrome will make up the difference, but then I still need it to run a real adblock, not the current "load the image and then hide it" version.

Re:Its just not the fastest browser... (0, Flamebait)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098324)

Opera has a lot going for it in the speed department. But part of that is because you're basically using an Opera proxy. Everything you do on the internet gets routed through them.

For all the "privacy" concerns about Chrome having auto-suggest for search, Opera has some very legitimate privacy concerns.

Re:Its just not the fastest browser... (2, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098358)

You're misinformed. That's just a (off by default) recently introduced function; Opera always was damn snappy overall.

Re:Its just not the fastest browser... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098452)

Are you talking about the mobile version?

But Father Steve says no Flash (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097782)

Is it a sin if I download this? I mean a lot of Catholics use birth control, right? So will I be excommunicated from the Apple store for this? Will I be forced to commune with infidel Windows users? I'm conflicted here.

Re:But Father Steve says no Flash (1)

ubergamer1337 (912210) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097890)

NONE SHALL FLASH!

Re:But Father Steve says no Flash (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098072)

NONE SHALL FLASH!

You mean Gandalf is really Steve Jobs?

Damn. You made Baby Frodo cry.

Can it display PDFs? (2, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097854)

This is the one thing that prevents me from using Chrome regularly, at least on my desktop machine (64-but Ubuntu 9.10). I haven't looked into the reasons why, but FF will display PDFs using the browser plugin provided by acroread, and Chrome just gives me a blank page.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098054)

PDFs displayed inside the browser window is a bug more than a feature. Almost 100% of the time, this causes problems, of all kinds. Whenever I install a browser, or get a new company computer/laptop, I disable PDF display in the browser window.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098228)

I use PDF Download to solve that problem under Firefox. But with Chrome, each browser tab is an independent process. Load up something in a tab (such as a PDF) and it's borked? Close the tab, problem solved. Doesn't seem like it would be a big issue for Chrome.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098248)

PDFs displayed inside the browser window is a bug more than a feature. Almost 100% of the time, this causes problems, of all kinds.

I don't have any problems with it.

And a couple of the banks I do business with make it very hard to get a downloadable PDF. It's nearly impossible to look at my statements with Chrome.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

P-Nuts (592605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098294)

Yes, but while I like the PDFs to open in a separate window, I don't like being left with a pointless tab showing a blank page, which seems to happen quite often (but not all the time) on Chrome.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098298)

It's certainly not a bug, and we're displaying PDFs in the browser in both IE and Firefox for about 80 users of our web-based document management system.

This works very well because the user stays on the site and stays integrated into the UI of the webapp (which has visible controls for selecting related documents among other features). We've never had any browser-specific issues in the 5+ years we've been doing it, with thousands of documents now in the system (we've had Adobe Reader issues, but these have always affected both the stand-alone app and the browser plugin, and have usually been solved by a reinstall and/or update).

Regardless of that, the Chrome problem he's talking about is that it doesn't even launch the reader separately or offer to save the file. You just get a plain blank gray page and that's all. This is extremely annoying.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098538)

It is a bug because it means that every new drive-by PDF exploit has a chance to hit me if my browser automatically loads the PDFs.

Your system is nice, but you have control over the content. That “feature” shouldn’t be enabled for PDFs from the web in general.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098328)

I have the same problem with chromium, I don't know what the deal is. Even mozplugger doesn't fix it (and chrome/chromium will use mozilla plugins automagically these days. and they often work — flash does.)

mostly I try to quick view PDFs these days, but that's even worse than downloading the PDF if you have poor bandwidth.

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

Coffee4cr (1524129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098334)

This is the one thing that prevents me from using Chrome regularly, at least on my desktop machine (64-but Ubuntu 9.10). I haven't looked into the reasons why, but FF will display PDFs using the browser plugin provided by acroread, and Chrome just gives me a blank page.

Grab the extension that uses google's pdf viewer. http://goo.gl/GqNg [goo.gl] Hope this helps

Chromium doesn't simulate Xt for plugins (1)

Sits (117492) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098526)

Apparently acroread depends on the browser implementing Xt (a really old toolkit) support for its plugins which Chrome/Chromium doesn't do. Further, acroread is 32 bit only on Linux which also acts as a disincentive for devs to work on the issue. You can read the details in the Chromium bug report about why the acroread plugin does not work on Linux [google.com] .

Re:Can it display PDFs? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098532)

I suggest using a Google Chrome extension to let Google Docs parse the PDF and display it inline.

Yes, you'll lose some PDF features, but often it's good enough, and it's a much more stable method than using PDF Reader online.

The extension:

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nnbmlagghjjcbdhgmkedmbmedengocbn [google.com]

Opera 10.53 faster for me... (2, Interesting)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097856)

Opera 10.53 is faster than it on my Quad Core Q8300 with 4GB RAM and Win7 x64...

So I take any claims of it "blowing everything else out the water" as just Chrome fanboy talk.

I hope this is only an early example (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097872)

Chrome has long been one of the browsers with worse Flash integration. Right-click flash menu refusing to disappear, very slow Flash plugin startup, high resource usage, Chrome starting and running Flash at full priority in background pages.

I don't see any of these resolved. So far all that has materialized from the "advanced integration" is the bundling.

does this fix flash sandboxing? (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097908)

previously plugins were not sandboxed, meaning that both regular and incognitos windows using flash shared the same flash cookies and cache. is this fixed with integrated flash?

Re:does this fix flash sandboxing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098158)

Actually, I like having everything sharing the same flash cookies and cache. That made my "/usr/local/bin/fuckFlash" script much easier to write: just
#!/bin/sh
rm -rf ~/Library/Preferences/Macromedia

Chrome isn't the fastest Javascript browser (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097942)

At least not on OS X...not definitively as the poster suggests. A quick run of Chrome beta vs. WebKit nightly (if we are comparing betas), shows that WebKit nightly is faster than Chrome on the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark. Chrome is faster than WebKit nightly on the V8 benchmark.

Still do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097960)

Unless Google rewrote the Flash runtime to not suck donkey balls on anything but 32-bit Windows, and has built in Flash blocking by default, this alleged feature isn't anything I want.

Guys, Flash is a fucking cancer. If you think you're somehow advancing your fight with Google by bundling it into Chrome and Android, you're sadly fucktarded.

Let it go. If you want to help out, partner with Adobe on writing HTML5 authoring tools that make replacing Flash easy and painless for web developer. Open standard web is good web.

What about for us normal folks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097978)

...which remains the fastest JavaScript browser available today.

OK fine, it has fast JavaScript. But how does it perform/compare to regular Web browsing, and how much better is it for us normal people who just want to use a Web browser to read Web pages instead of having remote Web sites perform executable actions on our computers. And how much less bloat does Chrome have compared to other Web browsers?

Re:What about for us normal folks? (4, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098096)

Javascript is used for normal browsing. Websites that regular uses visit (Facebook, Google, etc) are full of it.

But... Trust Issues (1, Troll)

thethibs (882667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097982)

Yah, yah, great product. But what information is Google collecting as you browse?

Re:But... Trust Issues (1, Insightful)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098100)

What information is Microsoft collecting as you browse?
What information is Mozilla collecting as you browse?
What information is AOL collection as you browse?

Wireshark and run them or stfu.

Still has the same old problems (5, Interesting)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098010)

I haven't had much of a chance to play around with it, but it looks like it still suffers from all of the "problems" (ie things i don't like) that i've complained about before [slashdot.org] .

In particular, it's still lacking a lot of options that i think ought to be available, like making new tabs open at the end of the list, having a minimum size that tabs can shrink to and a scrollable tab bar, having a drop-down list of all open tabs, and the ability to move the tab bar below the rest of the toolbars. Which is mostly just a list of all the fixes that the Firefox browser has already introduced. There's no shame in benefiting from the experience of those who have come before if you're unable to think of a way to improve the interface yourself.

Obviously not everyone wants those features, which is why the should be options and not defaults, but i think enough people do that it _is_ worth making them options. Unfortunately Google's view towards user customability remains... unencouraging at best. [chromium.org] (Or, IMHO, "stupidly wrong.") Luckily _some_ of those changes can be implemented by extensions, but not all of them.

Re:Still has the same old problems (1)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098172)

SSL renegotiation is still broken as well (under mac at least, haven't tried the others).

This is a deal breaker, if I can't use my certificates, I can't use the browser for work.

Is a shame, because I really like everything else about the browser.

Re:Still has the same old problems (1, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098218)

I'm guessing this still means no adblock plus and no noscript for Chrome? Without those I have no interest.

Re:Still has the same old problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098422)

Adblock has been available for Chrome for the past little while. I think you are just a wee bit behind the times :)

Chrome ad blockers use up your transfer cap (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098550)

True, ad blockers on Chrome hide ads, but they don't prevent the ad from loading in the first place. This is important to people on satellite, 3G, or the Southern Hemisphere, all of which have transfer caps on the order of 5 GB per month per subscriber.

Re:Still has the same old problems (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098560)

The scrollable tab bar is, arguably, not only not the best idea necessarily...but, most importantly, redundant if you have drop-down list of open tabs - potentially much more clear with much less action required if you really have lots of tabs open. But that's the thing, "potentially"...because the way FF implements it totally blows - it shouldn't be a scrolling menu if the list doesn't fit, it should be a nested menu; much faster again, much more clear.
FF also has problems with those elements of the interface, also needs fixes.

Preference overload (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098568)

Obviously not everyone wants those features, which is why the should be options and not defaults, but i think enough people do that it _is_ worth making them options.

This is the path to preference overload [pair.com] .

Faster and faster (1)

hedleyroos (817147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098056)

I've been following these browser press releases for years now and every time the Javascript is X% faster. Does that mean that it was horrendously crap to start with or do they conveniently benchmark it on whatever the latest and greatest available hardware is?

Re:Faster and faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098224)

It means it was interpreted before, and so as slow as an interpreted system would be. Then they made optimized interpreters, and then JIT compilers, and then better JIT compilers.

Re:Faster and faster (1)

extrasolar (28341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098258)

Mathematically, if every release the javascript is 10% faster, that is 10% faster than the last fastest release, so maybe we're talking about smaller and smaller values of fasterness.

IOW, if it takes 10 seconds to complete a javascript script, then it takes 9 seconds because 1 second is 10% of 10 seconds; then it takes 8.1 seconds because .9 seconds is 10% of 9 seconds; then 7.29 seconds; then 6.561; and so on.

Re:Faster and faster (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098384)

``I've been following these browser press releases for years now and every time the Javascript is X% faster. Does that mean that it was horrendously crap to start with''

Yes. As long as people were using JavaScript to add little bits of interactivity and dynamism to web pages, speed was not an issue and browser makers didn't make their JavaScript implementations fast. Now that people are writing entire applications in JavaScript, speed is an issue and browser makers use JavaScript speed as a major selling point.

Well (4, Funny)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098112)

DO NOT WANT. I don't need any more proprietary crap rolled into a browser. Lean, mean, and a solid plug in architecture. Great now how the fuck am I supposed to block all those fucking retarded flash ads with the damn flash engine embedded... grr.... on the other hand:

I for one welcome out cowboyNeal worshipping Dancing Baby overlords but question their ability to run Earth better then a borg augmented Bill Gates. WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong besides Steve Ballmer throwing a chair and breaking the series of tubes we call the Internet. The only thing worse then a suddenOutbreakOfCommonSense coupled with the release of Duke Nukem Forver is the return of Charlie the Unicorn during a Chocolate Rain. In Soviet Russia Snakes on a plane get You but under the new rulership we are as screwed as the Star Wars Kid getting the hookup with a Wii Fit Girl. If you don't think things can get worse, I am fine with that, OK Go, but all your bases are belong to us then. See if I care. But when Dear Leader forces you to do the Hampster Dance in front of the Saugeen Stripper after the JK Wedding Entrance Dance you will beg to be thrown in with those Snakes on a Plane flying to the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny! I know that CorrelationNoCausation may apply here but I am certain that the new overlords computer will be superior to our current technology, but does it run Linux and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of their computers! My Epeen is huge thinking about it to the point of a joygasm! Perhaps with their technology we could getyourasstomars in the time it takes to watch the Last Lecture! Imagine the number of Libraries of Congress we could store using their technology! Mod me Troll? How dare you you insensitive clod! Now to distract you while I steal the Netcraft report confirming Gentoo
Linux is dying. LOOK OVER THERE! OMG!!! PONIES!!

(Did I miss anything there?)

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098282)

Did I miss anything there?

Thrust vectoring rules the skies?

Re:Well (1)

Dracker (1323355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098400)

1) Post tons of memes
2) Forget to list the "Profit?" meme
3) ???
4) Profit?

Re:Well (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098414)

Just nuke it from orbit.

Re:Well (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098506)

(Did I miss anything there?)

4. Profit?

Doesn't feel any faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098182)

Then again those ad sites are always as slow as dead snails which entirely negates any speed advantage for Chrome, or at least until they can get proper blocking v. merely hiding elements.

Does the UI still suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098350)

-Fixed buttons in the toolbar being one of the most retarded aspects of chrome.
-Only part of the default browser theme uses aero, making it look very inconsistent depending on what your aero theme looks like.
-Bad tab behavior defaults, like if I open a new tab in firefox, by default the tab is focused. Not so in chrome; not without holding shift.
-Wide, overlapping tabs aren't very appealing, nor is the uncustomizable positioning of all tabs being above the address bar.

I don't care if it's faster. It's not fast enough to make a noticeable difference in my day to day browsing.

Awesome (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098574)

Given that Chrome is the only browser I've found on Linux that actually feels fast (well, Midori is speedy too but it crashed constantly), I'm happy to see innovation on that front.

I've never figured out why Chrome is as fast as it is on Linux while Firefox feels like driving an 18-wheeler dragging a stadium behind it (while on Windows and Mac it feels just fine), but alas, I found something that works and that's all that matters.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?