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 Rolls Out Chrome 7

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the bright-and-shiny dept.

Google 292

An anonymous reader writes "Google on Tuesday released a new stable version of its internet browser, Chrome 7. The latest update is part of Google's promise in July to release a new stable version of Chrome about every six weeks. Chrome 7 comes with hundreds of bug fixes, an updated HTML5 parser, the File API, and directory upload via input tag. It is available in the stable and beta channels for Windows, Mac, and Linux. 'The main focus was the hundreds of bug fixes,' Jeff Chang, a Google product manager, wrote in a blog post."

cancel ×

292 comments

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

Lots of versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963042)

Google chrome is the new kid on the block, but is already at version 7... that's fast...

Lots of versions 2.0 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963106)

Google chrome is the new kid on the block, but is already at version 7... that's fast...

Google Chrome is the newest kid on the block but is already at version 7... that's really fast...

Re:Lots of versions (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 4 years ago | (#33963164)

Google chrome is the new kid on the block, but is already at version 7... that's fast...

Hey neat, they fixed the bug where I couldn't paste into slashdot's textarea if I already wrote <i>

Oh damn, it only worked in the first textarea

Re:Lots of versions (3, Interesting)

smallfries (601545) | about 4 years ago | (#33963474)

It would nice if it improves Youtube playback. It worked at some point, but then after some mandatory sneaky update it broke. For those of you that haven't experienced Youtube breakage: you get a completely incorrect error message and no video. Not only on the main site, but also the 90% of internet video that is just an embedded Youtube player. It can't be diagnosed or fixed and there are thousands of complaints out there on forums about the problem. If you randomly hit then there is no fix.

Then that started working again (was it with 5.0 or 6.0, I forget). But now anything above 480p stutters like crazy. It is a real shame because Chrome is a nice browser, but if they can't even maintain compatibility with one of the largest sites on the web (which they own FFS) then they have issues. Every other browser on my machine can play the same video though the same drivers without a problem.

At this point I might go back to the bloated piece of crap that Firefox has become on the mac....

Re:Lots of versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33964074)

At this point I might go back to the bloated piece of crap that Firefox has become on the mac....

But doesn't it feel good to have a choice? Or does the world owe you something?

Re:Lots of versions (1)

MichaelKristopeit 62 (1920344) | about 4 years ago | (#33964408)

i use chrome 7 on an older macbook... 720p works great on youtube, i've never had an issue, and i've very particular about such things. do you have any plugins installed? perhaps ones that attach themselves to flash video streams to enable ripping?

i'm not saying you're lying, but i don't trust you.

that's not fast (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33963184)

that's just version numbering manipulation to appear fast

Re:that's not fast (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#33963254)

If IE took that version numbering manipulation from the start... Meaning a new IE version with every Windows Update... What would we be on? IE4000?

Re:that's not fast (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 4 years ago | (#33963348)

By your logic, I guess we need to check which subversion (or git) revision Chrome is on to get a real version number.

Most updates to IE in windows updates are bug fixes. Same is true for Chrome which is why neither project gets version numbers the way you are suggesting.

Re:that's not fast (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | about 4 years ago | (#33964020)

Not to mention there are many components to each, with each component progressing at its own pace. Google Chrome's "version" number is really a public release number.

Re:Lots of versions (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33963498)

It's easy to do that when you arbitrarily bump up the major version number every six months to "catch up" with Internet Explorer 8.

Re:Lots of versions (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | about 4 years ago | (#33964060)

That's every six WEEKS, not months, and I would highly doubt "catching up with IE" is of any interest. Will you be singing that same tune when Chrome 16 comes out in one year (54 weeks)?

Re:Lots of versions (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#33963716)

Version numbering is often arbitrary.

In other projects, the same release might have gone "1.1.1, 1.1.2., 1.1.3" (or if it's an independent OSS project "0.010, 0.011, 0.012" ;) - or 10, 15, 20, 25 30.

I see the appeal of google's choice though - it keeps things simple. "What version are you on?" "3.6.10"... ? Isn't easier to just call it 5?

The only people who really care about the significance of "dot" releases as opposed to major releases are us developers - and perhaps marketing types. End users are usually happy to know that there's a "new version" available that they can download.

I'm guilty of ridiculously arbitrary numbering myself (see sig - 1.1.80? WTF?) -- though with the upcoming release I'm making an improvement by just going all out and calling it "1.2" ;)

One request...please! (5, Insightful)

Singularity42 (1658297) | about 4 years ago | (#33963062)

Can I open a local file from a menu? Is that too much to ask???

Re:One request...please! (2, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33963158)

Ctrl+O

Re:One request...please! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963554)

Yes and the way most people learn keyboard shortcuts is... by first seeing them in the application menu. Putting back the http:// protocol prefix and trailing slash on root directory index would be a good idea too.

Re:One request...please! (1, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33963694)

Considering Ctrl+O is a ubiquitous standard such that any application down to MS paint to Adobe CS that can open files uses Ctrl+O to open files, I think they saw it at least once.

7.0? Really? (2, Informative)

SpryGuy (206254) | about 4 years ago | (#33963064)

Why isn't it 6.x? Does this mean in 6 weeks they'll give us 8.0? Whatever happened to using the numbers AFTER the decimal point, especially for releases that concentrate mostly on bug-fixes?

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

treeves (963993) | about 4 years ago | (#33963130)

They probably just want to hurry up and get to 10 (i.e. 'X') and they can just stay there and be like Apple.

Re:7.0? Really? (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33963364)

But even if there was a Chrome X 10.whatever, the other browser Opera 11 will still "beat" them. ;-)

And poor seaMokney is only on 2.
That must be a lousy browser. ;-)

Re:7.0? Really? (2, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 4 years ago | (#33963138)

Well they were doing 0.1 and 0.2, but then they jumped to 1.0. I think the prevailing theory at the time was that computer manufacturers didn't want to ship "beta" software, so Google simply removed the beta logo and bumped the version number. Problem solved! :)

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#33963238)

No ones going to download it if it isn't a "new" version.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

net28573 (1516385) | about 4 years ago | (#33963244)

With how awesome google has been at making and updating the browser in such a short amount of time, i think that they deserve some bonus full numbers in their name considering how kickass their browser has become imho.

id like to see internet explorer go at the same pace but then they wouldnt really be internet explorer if they did, now would they?

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33963246)

Is the placebo effect real? Yes, if you don't care how you achieve results. They'd call it Chrome Deluxe 2010 Ultra Extreme if that'd bring more users. Unlike many open source projects that are anti-marketing, not just neutral to it but actually opposed to using more "marketable" names.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33963774)

Is Chrome considered "open source" like firefox, or "closed" like Opera? I'm confused. It's owned by Google so I'd think closed but not sure.

Windows NT 6.1 is called "seven" on the packaging Chrome 6.1 or Chrome 7.0 version numbering really means little.
IMHO

Re:7.0? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963962)

chrome is closed... chromium is open. The difference? Branding.

As for version numbering. Marketing companies killed them. They once had a meaning and its something that should be followed as it tells you a lot about whats going on. x.x.x major.minor.bugfix this tells you that if x.x.2 comes out you should probably get it as the features don't change but something that wasn't working right should now be working correctly. minor being adding some features. and major being pretty close to a complete overhaul of the UI, feature set, and all. This doesnt matter to most people but if followed those of who have any support responsibilities would be able to tell what was going on just by the number instead of reading a change log.

Re:7.0? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963994)

NT 6.1 was that way for compatibility reasons with broken apps, it's irrelevant.
 
And google chrome is open (see Chromium).

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

Seq (653613) | about 4 years ago | (#33964302)

The core bits of chrome are open source (Look at the chromium project, of which i am a user). Chrome itself also has some proprietary bits (updater, crash reporter, flash & pdf support built-in, etc).

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 4 years ago | (#33964392)

Is Chrome considered "open source" like firefox, or "closed" like Opera?

"Chromium" is like the "Darwin kernel" (MacOS X), which is open source, where Apple contributes and receives contributions, while creating their own environment on top (the rest of the OS) that is closed source.

"Google Chrome Browser" is a modified and closed adaptation of Chromium that adds google's branding and datamining-ware --I think it also added that Mozilla-dreaded H.264 decoder or some other licensed software that can't be open sourced.

You can definitely choose Chromium for the sake of privacy, but it's not as nice to pronounce so your friends can hear about it. Google's proprietary update daemon is also nowhere in the Chromium code.

Re:7.0? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963304)

... 6 is already out. Several versions in fact.
They DO use 6.x. Updates happen silently in the background for Chrome quite a lot.

Major version numbers increase when certain milestones have been reached.

If anything, i'm glad they are throwing version after version out. Unlike another group i won't mention.
*cough* W3C *cough* Damn that is one nasty cough i have.
Feature-based updates > monolithic updates. They seriously should do this with HTML5, it is getting beyond a joke now.
Hell, screw version numbers, just release features when they are completed, version numbers for something like HTML is ass backwards.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#33963310)

Chrome gained 7 major versions while Firefox still at 3.x. Version number matters? Is not "winning" because getting up faster, look at windows version number in all its history.

Probably will change versioning naming scheme in not very long... at this rate will have numbers higher than the full year this decade.

In the other hand, is still a young product, probably will slow down new versions rate as its feature set stabilizes.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 years ago | (#33963366)

Windows marketing has nothing to do with its success. Look at the prevalence of Vista during the huge backlash of "GET THIS FUCKING SHIT OFF MY COMPUTER" "Sorry we can't, you don't have a license." This was a key factor in the rise of MacOSX use.

Re:7.0? Really? (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 4 years ago | (#33963326)

I said this before and I will say this again. Google, just like MS, is playing the version game so they make an immature browser seem equal to other browser, at least to the unsophisticated portion of the customer base.

This is not to say that Google is not catching up fast, just that they are focusing on version numbers in their add copies, while primarily fixing bugs in actuality.

Compare this to firms that are actually trying to deliver a useful feature set to customers, rather than just focusing on metrics that have long been shown to be meaningless. Firefox is happy at 3.6 Safari is happy at 5. Opera, which may have been around longer than google itself, is only at 10.63. These are people who deliver useful browser.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

rm999 (775449) | about 4 years ago | (#33964168)

I'm confused, are you saying the lower (version #)/(number of years out) a browser is, the better? Are you saying Chrome isn't a useful browser?

I don't primarily use Chrome, but I respect it as a browser and consider it fully functional/useful.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 4 years ago | (#33964172)

I said this before and I will say this again. Google, just like MS, is playing the version game so they make an immature browser seem equal to other browser, at least to the unsophisticated portion of the customer base.

How is Chrome immature?

Google's explanation is that shorter development cycles mean that they won't have to wait as long if some new feature missed the feature freeze.

Re:7.0? Really? (2, Interesting)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#33963782)

Why isn't it 6.x? Does this mean in 6 weeks they'll give us 8.0? Whatever happened to using the numbers AFTER the decimal point, especially for releases that concentrate mostly on bug-fixes?

Did you ever wonder at how arbitrary such numbering schemes are? To the end user, a new version is a new version. They either have to download an update or they don't. (Mac or Ubuntu take the version numbering to extremes by giving new versions get fancy animal names. Not a bad idea, really...)

Re:7.0? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963976)

Why isn't it 6.x?

Because its a regularly scheduled, feature-adding release. Which, under Chrome's version numbering scheme, is a major version. Chrome's release schedule isn't built to incorporate time for dithering over whether the number and significance of the particular features in a particular feature-adding production release are major enough to warrant a (x+1).0 release or smaller so that they warrant a x.(n+1) release when the prior version was x.n.

Does this mean in 6 weeks they'll give us 8.0?

Yes, this was already covered when we discussed this when Google announced their new release schedule for Chrome going forward.

Whatever happened to using the numbers AFTER the decimal point, especially for releases that concentrate mostly on bug-fixes?

This is not a bug-fix release, though (like every release) it incorporates bug fixes. A bug fix release doesn't incorporate, e.g., new APIs.

Chrome uses a release plan where there are, essentially, two kinds of releases:

1. Releases which do add new features, which occur on a fixed schedule and include whatever is ready.

2. Releases which are bug fixes.

The former are major versions, the latter are not (the only change from the old Chrome release plan is the change to fixed schedule for the feature-adding releases.)

Some other software uses a less-lean approach that involves more effort in planning which features will be in which feature-adding release, evaluating the significance of the release, and deciding whether its a major or minor version bump based on that. This kind of release planning tends also to feature longer gaps between feature-adding releases of any scale, and also to feature delays and re-evaluation of whether particular releases scheduled as major releases should be relabeled minor or vice versa. Google's approach eliminates these forms of waste.

Re:7.0? Really? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 4 years ago | (#33964124)

Why isn't it 6.x? Does this mean in 6 weeks they'll give us 8.0? Whatever happened to using the numbers AFTER the decimal point, especially for releases that concentrate mostly on bug-fixes?

They already are. They sometime issue security fixes (and, more rarely, urgent bug fixes) as only bumping the build number.

As for the 6.0/7.0/8.0, well, it's simply Google's way of doing it. For what it's worth, Google use to refer their releases as "milestones".

I don't think they look at version numbers as you do.

They are not bugs... (1)

Snotman (767894) | about 4 years ago | (#33963096)

it works as written!

derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963102)

I don't see why google doesn't just jump to 8.0
Chromium and Canary 8.0 are pretty stable as it is.

Every 6 weeks (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33963108)

So by the time we reach the end of 2011, we'll be on Chrome 16???

What's the point of all these frequent releases? Maybe I ought to give this browser a try... but Firefox and seaMonkey have served me well since I quit Mozilla Netscape, so I'm inclined not to change. ("If it ain't broke...")

Re:Every 6 weeks (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | about 4 years ago | (#33963602)

The reason for the frequent releases is that instead of x.1 or x.2 releases for major features, they do a whole new version number. Most projects will use such increments for minor additions and whole integers for rewrites or major overhauls. Its the other end of the spectrum from projects that have an integer release only once every decade and have version numbers extending in multiple decimals, like x.yy.zz.a.b.cccc and other inanely specific versions.

Re:Every 6 weeks (3, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33963938)

So by the time we reach the end of 2011, we'll be on Chrome 16???
What's the point of all these frequent releases?

How is this a "troll"? Looks like an honest question to me. Are questions no longer allowed on slashdot??? Apparently people seeking information are now considered undesirables.

can Chrome lose the HAL Simon mascot please? (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33963116)

Re:can Chrome lose the HAL Simon mascot please? (4, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 4 years ago | (#33963156)

Simon says: I can not do that, Dave.

Answer to can Chrome lose the HAL Simon mascot? (2, Funny)

neoshroom (324937) | about 4 years ago | (#33963218)

Question: can Chrome lose the HAL Simon mascot please?

Answer: I can't do that Dave.

P.S. In all seriousness I don't like the default icon either as it was too distractingly colorful. I switched it to this one, called Chrome Z-Edition [deviantart.com] .

Re:Answer to can Chrome lose the HAL Simon mascot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963520)

That looks like a Pokemon ball

http://www.google.com/images?q=pokemon+ball [google.com]

(PS: you can't win)

Still Playing Catch-UIp (2, Interesting)

Pigskin-Referee (1389181) | about 4 years ago | (#33963120)

I really start to get scared when a developer releases an update to a product and starts off by declaring that there are "hundreds of bug fixes". Just how the hell did such a bug infected version get released to begin with? Quality control obviously was not high on their list. I wonder how many hundreds of bug fixes will be incorporated into the next version?

100% coverage is expensive (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33963240)

Just how the hell did such a bug infected version get released to begin with?

A test suite that guarantees 100% coverage is called formal verification [wikipedia.org] . As I understand it, this is far too labor-intensive for commercial off-the-shelf PC software. So there's a trade-off: you can write a bigger test suite, not ship a product, and bring in no revenue; or you can fix defects and add them to the test suite as they are discovered. For decades, the latter has been sufficient for PC software used by the general public.

Re:100% coverage is expensive (4, Funny)

Ja'Achan (827610) | about 4 years ago | (#33963608)

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth

Re:100% coverage is expensive (0, Offtopic)

CODiNE (27417) | about 4 years ago | (#33964328)

Regarding your sig.

There were a few cases years back of businesses being sued for selling DVD ripping / jukebox systems. Since ripping your own DVDs is still technically illegal in the USA, marketing and selling such services is somewhat dangerous in these times.

You could start out by word of mouth, but once you get enough business to pay the rent you're going to show up on their radar.

Re:Still Playing Catch-UIp (3, Interesting)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 4 years ago | (#33963360)

I really start to get scared when a developer releases an update to a product and starts off by declaring that there are "hundreds of bug fixes".

Can you name even a single large software product (other than ultra-expensive avionics) that provably doesn't have hundreds of bugs?

Re:Still Playing Catch-UIp (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963544)

OS X. It doesn't have bugs, it has features that are so awesome that to mere mortals, who can never hope to comprehend them, they look like bugs.

Re:Still Playing Catch-UIp (3, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | about 4 years ago | (#33963604)

No, but that doesn't mean you talk about it. At a previous job one of the lead developers was responsible for writing the release notes. At one version, he bragged in there about how "over 200 bugs" had been fixed in that release. Not long after letting it out the door, we started getting a barrage of emails from angry customers demanding to know "why your software has hundreds of bugs in it."

The reality is that software has bugs. The reality is also that most users will never be impacted by all of them. Touting the number of bug fixes as if it's some kind of badge of honor just confuses people and makes them panic.

He no longer got to write the release notes after that.

Re:Still Playing Catch-UIp (1)

pclminion (145572) | about 4 years ago | (#33963646)

I suppose I should add that we never concealed bugs from anyone. Had a user ever asked us how many bugs we'd fixed in release XYZ, we would have told them, no problem. But nobody ever asks that.

Re:Still Playing Catch-UIp (1)

RavenChild (854835) | about 4 years ago | (#33963998)

Duh, Mac OS 10.7. Heard that the software makes a shit ton of bugs in previous versions just so the developers have something to do. Problem is that we get stuck with the old versions.

Updated (4, Interesting)

neoshroom (324937) | about 4 years ago | (#33963144)

I read this news item and said to myself "Oh, Chrome 7 is out. Maybe I should go get it."

Then I realized I already had it. It updated while I slept and I was reading the article in Chrome 7.

AdBlock (4, Interesting)

Reason58 (775044) | about 4 years ago | (#33963162)

Yet it still doesn't have an equivalent to AdBlock Plus.

And for the Chrome-heads who point out AdBlock [google.com] , it is a good start but still nowhere near as effective. It lets many ads through, it still downloads and just hides a large chunk of ads, and it does not seem to stop flash ads at all.

Re:AdBlock (1)

armanox (826486) | about 4 years ago | (#33963234)

And this is Chome's fault how? Adblock + Flash block might be a better combination to try though.

Re:AdBlock (5, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | about 4 years ago | (#33963300)

It's Chrome's fault because scripts can't run before page content is loaded.

Re:AdBlock (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33963514)

Just so you know, they can on Safari.

Re:AdBlock (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | about 4 years ago | (#33964196)

t's Chrome's fault because scripts can't run before page content is loaded.

Chrome supports onbeforeload, but yes, there are some limitations remaining that are being worked on.

Re:AdBlock (2, Informative)

Esospopenon (1838392) | about 4 years ago | (#33963322)

I use the AdThwart extention [google.com] . Works good for me but your milage may vary.

Re:AdBlock (3, Informative)

Glith (7368) | about 4 years ago | (#33963374)

Privoxy works very well for me.

Re:AdBlock (3, Informative)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 4 years ago | (#33963410)

I don't see anymore adds with the default setting with Adblock for chrome than I do for adblock plus for firefox.

Granted, this is just my experience and I am sure that you have many example that you could share but felt that there was no need to.

I don't see any adds on slashdot, fox, cnn, gmail, sourceforge, rapidshare, imdb, etc in chrome.

Re:AdBlock (3, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#33963826)

I don't see anymore adds with the default setting with Adblock for chrome than I do for adblock plus for firefox.

Granted, this is just my experience and I am sure that you have many example that you could share but felt that there was no need to.

I don't see any adds on slashdot, fox, cnn, gmail, sourceforge, rapidshare, imdb, etc in chrome.

Rest assured that although you don't see them, you are downloading many of them. And being tracked by them ;)

Re:AdBlock (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963438)

Uhhh, it _does_ stop downloads for about 6 months now, is damn effective for me (I don't see ads at all?), and it works with Flash ads (it uses the same easyfilter as ABP on FF).

Try it again??

Re:AdBlock (1)

phleb3 (954280) | about 4 years ago | (#33963496)

I use Pivoxy to do the same thing. It just works.

Re:AdBlock (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 4 years ago | (#33963762)

Uh, it does; an update in webkit from some time ago allowed this in chrome too.

Re:AdBlock (2, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | about 4 years ago | (#33963940)

Yet it still doesn't have an equivalent to AdBlock Plus. And for the Chrome-heads who point out AdBlock [google.com] , it is a good start but still nowhere near as effective. It lets many ads through, it still downloads and just hides a large chunk of ads, and it does not seem to stop flash ads at all.

I acknowledge that the Chrome plug-in has limitations by itself, but I personally find it much more than adequate because I also took a couple of minutes to write a cron script to to download and apply the latest hosts file [mvps.org] . I never see ads; I can't remember the last time I saw a Flash ad, and my bandwidth isn't wasted on ads (or worse).

The Chrome plug-in is only good enough for grandma and average users, but the rest of us have a multi-layered strategy anyway. Firefox is a great browser, but I liked it better when it wasn't so slow and bloated. I'm a happy Chromium user now, and there are no FF plug-ins I miss at all.

Re:AdBlock (1)

Funnnny (1409625) | about 4 years ago | (#33964326)

>>New in version 2.0: Ads are actually blocked from downloading now, instead of just being removed after the fact!
Am I misunderstanding or something wrong with Adblock system ?

Arg! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963176)

I just wish Chrome had a bookmarks left-side sidebar. Then I could easily make it my main browser.

Re:Arg! (1)

Omestes (471991) | about 4 years ago | (#33964380)

Try "chrome://flags [chrome] , if your running the Dev build (or Canary, the daily) on certain OSs then side tabs is an experimental option. I know it is available on the Windows version, and am pretty sure it is there on the Linux versions now.

Bookmark sidebar (2, Insightful)

emgarf (727623) | about 4 years ago | (#33963186)

Have they figured out yet that many users want a bookmark sidebar/pane as an available choice?

First Post! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963338)

Damn. At least it would have been if I hadn't ditched Opera for Chrome 7.

Chrome 7 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963370)

Finally a version I can run on Windows 7

I don't know about everyone else... (1)

pdxp (1213906) | about 4 years ago | (#33963598)

But my Chrome updated silently... I thought it was supposed to either ask me or let me know an update is available. Surprising.

Re:I don't know about everyone else... (2, Insightful)

k_187 (61692) | about 4 years ago | (#33963700)

The biggest problem that Chrome has is that there's no way (that I am aware of) to turn off the auto-updates. personally, it doesn't bother me that much, but I can understand if it does bother someone else. There should at least be the option to ask (which again there may be, but I couldn't find it).

Re:I don't know about everyone else... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#33963862)

If only more systems did this, the Internet would be a safer place.

On the other hand, the first time an automatic update breaks something, there'll be hell to pay.

Re:I don't know about everyone else... (1)

lagfest (959022) | about 4 years ago | (#33963904)

Yes, Chrome has always done this. Apparently it saves on the support budget to have a single version of chrome for all users (just like pretty much every other google product).

Where is print preview for God's sake? (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 years ago | (#33963612)

Really, can someone convince me that asking for this feature is asking too much after all these Chrome iterations? What's really wrong with this feature that makes it unappealing to implement? Come on Google!

Baby steps (2, Interesting)

MrBippers (1091791) | about 4 years ago | (#33964236)

Chrome just got the print selection option (which I didn't realize was silently added until just now).

Re:Baby steps (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 years ago | (#33964272)

Where is it? Which version are you referring to? Can't wait to see this much wanted feature in my case.

Still doesn't work and no real place to open bugs (1)

kdekorte (8768) | about 4 years ago | (#33963638)

I've been trying to use Chrome since version 4 with Interwoven TeamSite. It doesn't work at all and I posted an issue[1] on the bug message board. So far no comments, no help and it still fails. The same application works great with firefox 3 and IE 6-8. So something is wrong in chrome.

[1] http://www.google.com/support/forum/user?hl=en&userid=08026626638604946631 [google.com]

Re:Still doesn't work and no real place to open bu (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 years ago | (#33963944)

There is an actual bug tracker [google.com] too, maybe try there also.

Re:Still doesn't work and no real place to open bu (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 years ago | (#33964054)

Maybe that's because you didn't specify how the method's being called, or offer suggestions as to how it's supposed to behave. Is it actually a bug in Chrome's implementation of Javascript? Maybe the TeamSite app has some broken browser detection.

Can you supply a unit test that only fails on Chrome? It might be a coincidence (or just copied unspecified behavior) that the other browsers work.

Without more information, it's not clear at all if there's even a bug, let alone where it might be. There are more pressing bugs, with more useful reports. They'll get priority.

Chrome is okay, but... (2, Interesting)

Smooth and Shiny (1097089) | about 4 years ago | (#33963718)

Chrome is okay, but I hate the minimal control you have over things like cookies. It's either all or none with Chrome. Then you have the lack of a sidebar for bookmarks and the bookmark interface itself is very unintuitive at best. There are other gripes as well, but those can mostly be solved with using various extensions.

Other than that, I like Chrome for its speed.

Re:Chrome is okay, but... (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33963920)

The bookmark interface is half baked and stupid. I agree.

Still no fix for hover-state bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33963784)

There are multiple bug reports regarding this - using the scrollwheel and moving the mouse while the cursor is in anything but 'arrow' state causes that state to be fixed, and breaks all hover events.

http://www.google.ca/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=2f248d3b34ed33a2&hl=en

It appears to only affect Linux versions, but is still present in my 8 dev version, and has wontfix on Chromium.

If I had a clue where to start digging, I'd fix it myself, but afraid that's not my area of expertise. Any help on this appreciated!

Debian's 7.0.544.0 older than Google's 7.0.517 (1)

Khopesh (112447) | about 4 years ago | (#33963830)

Interesting, Debian has chromium-browser (the brand-stripped chrome that lacks some of the phone-home features) in its experimental repository as 7.0.544.0~r61416-1 [debian.org] while Google's apt repository is featuring 7.0.517.41-r62167 as both beta and stable (unstable has moved to 8.0.552.5-r62886). Unless I'm mistaken, those version numbers are composed of [version]~[VCS revision]-[package version] and chromium-browser's versions are pinned to their equivalent google-chrome version. That makes the current versions rather peculiar since Debian's (older) 544 is higher than Google's current 517 while the Debian's VCS revision 61416 is (as expected) earlier than Google's 62167.

What am I missing?

(The Debian chromium-browser package info page for developers is http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/chromium-browser.html [debian.org] )

Default (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33963902)

I just installed, and I think it made Chrome my default browser without asking me.

Did anyone else have this occur?

Re:Default (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 years ago | (#33964222)

It shouldn't unless they are violating their stated principles. [google.co.in] Of course, they ARE violating their stated principles at least a little bit (google's updater hard to disable/etc) but this is the first I have heard of them hijacking the default browser.

Re:Default (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33964308)

I could be mistaken... but there was really nothing for me to click on, re: "Do you want to change your default browser".

I did not have Chrome installed, and then installed it. (though it has previously been on this computer)

Don't take my word for it... just wondered if anyone else had experienced this.

Re:Default (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33964378)

I found what the issue was. The website has, on the Terms of Service page, a checkbox for "Make Chrome my default browser". This is checked by default. Like most users I just clicked "accept" on the TOS to move on and didn't notice that.

My fault.

Directory Upload? (1)

Bloodwine (223097) | about 4 years ago | (#33963982)

Perhaps I am being a paranoid security freak, but directory upload sounds like a dangerous feature.

Can I copy and paste into the /. edit box? (1)

NevarMore (248971) | about 4 years ago | (#33964014)

Still no.

AdBlock? (1)

rbayer (1911926) | about 4 years ago | (#33964170)

I love Chrome's snappiness, but until they change their plugin/extension architecture so that AdBlock can block mid-video Flash ads, Firefox is still the winner in my book. Also: 7.0? Really? Not just 6.1?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?