Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-more-than-nine dept.

Chrome 169

An anonymous reader writes "Google has released version 10 of the Chrome Browser. The update brings hundreds of bug fixes as well as many features that have been available on the Chrome beta and dev channels to users interested in using Chrome's latest builds. Chrome 10 also addresses 23 security vulnerabilities in the WebKit-based browser (easily more than Google has ever fixed before): 15 rated as High, three rated as Medium, and five rated as Low."

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

Awesome! (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423968)

Normally I'd throw out a snarky joke like, "You mean the title should've been Google Releases Stable version of Chrome" but as a browser, Chrome's been pretty stable. Flash still makes it fall over from time to time, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Re:Awesome! (3, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424032)

Flash is sandboxed in the most recent version, which should lead to better protection against exploits against Flash. And for a while now Flash should only crash itself if it crashes; not the whole browser.

Re:Awesome! (3, Interesting)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424106)

Now, I hope the next one on their list to add Sandboxing support to is Java. Until then, Java will remain disabled in Chrome.

Re:Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424128)

Now, I hope the next one on their list to add Sandboxing support to is Java. Until then, Java will remain disabled in Chrome.

Java is its own sandbox. It's almost never targeted and won't be in the near future, not when Internet Explorer and Flash on any browser is such a tempting target. What are you worried about exactly?

Browser-based Java programs can't modify the host computer.

Re:Awesome! (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424222)

Browser-based Java programs can't modify the host computer.

My Windows Vista and XP internet explorer would have to disagree on this one.
I've twice seen the java box running before realizing exactly how Opera and IE have let spyware thru.

I really don't have a daily reason for java, but last I remember it is like 60+MBs to reinstall, and the download licensing you "sign" with Sun Microsystems is annoying to get an offline installer exe, so I stopped uninstalling it for those rainy days when a corporate site requires java.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424352)

You are so uninformed it hurts just to read your post.

I don...

Brain received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.

0x405E93 in parse_ascii () from /lib/language.so.1

Re:Awesome! (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424380)

I had java disabled in Chrome and the latest java update re-enabled it. Ideally, disabling java should be the default and it should have an entry in the GUI settings menu. No need for a security nightmare VM to be ready to run at any webpage's request.

Re:Awesome! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424114)

But does it still hard lock/freeze the whole PC when running a 'Fullscreen Windowed' (no titlebar) 3D game if I open Chrome? I somehow doubt it's going to only freeze up one tab. ;)

(For the record, Chrome is the only browser that does this, Minefield/Firefox and IE do not.)

Re:Awesome! (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425478)

What game may I ask? I fire up all Chrome all the time on my second monitor when I'm playing some WoW to look up misc wow-related things (wow gem finder, wowhead, ej, etc). Never had it crash.

Re:Awesome! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425776)

I just noticed it in Rift recently, so maybe it's just a conflict between some call they make and Chrome...

Re:Awesome! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424224)

Why is it when I think of Flash being sandboxed I expect an actual box with actual sand has to be involved to get it to run...

Re:Awesome! (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425904)

If Flash ran around in a sandbox, wouldn't he change it to a glassbox?

If only flash just crashed (2)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424248)

If flash would just crash then sandboxing would at least solve that. But instead it happily gobbles your CPU with runaway rendering crap. The only limit on it now is it is single threaded. Not looking forward to multi-cpu flash.

Re:If only flash just crashed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425100)

It solves that too to some extent.

This is on a 1050Mhz Athlon XP, so not exactly a modern machine - when the browser starts to lag and flash is the suspect, just hit shift+esc and kill the Flash plugin (should be second to bottom on the list, assuming you're using the official GPU drivers. If not, it'll be the bottom entry). You get a yellow bar appear at the top of any tabs that flash was running in, but the rest of the content is unaffected and none of the tabs crash. Restarting flash for a specific tab is as easy as refreshing that tab.

Re:If only flash just crashed (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425860)

Architecturally, pretty much everything that one would need is in place, if the underlying OS supports it....

At least on Windows platforms, the Flash plugin process shows up as "Chrome.exe", which is annoying; but you can get the real PID from Chrome's internal task manager and identify the process that way. Since it is a distinct process, it can be assigned a priority level of its own, distinct from that of Chrome. Re-nicing the process would presumably have the same effect on *nix systems, though I've not tried the flash plugin with Chrome there.

If one's concern is battery life/fan noise/heat, you'd need a hard limit, not just a priority(since priority keeps flash from hogging CPU time; but not from causing your system's otherwise idle CPU to wake up and start thrashing at maximum operating frequency...) On linux you'd use cpulimit, my understanding is that Windows has support starting from Vista on; but only per-SID, not per PID.

Between those, though, Chrome would have to just slightly change how it invokes the Flash plugin, or automatically run a couple of commands against it afterwards, to control the priority and/or absolute CPU time of Flash. I don't think that they've done so, so you would presently have to do this manually, or hack up an extension to do it; but it certainly seems doable enough.

Unfortunately, Flash remains a single process even for multiple distinct embedded objects, so you can't nice the banner ads into a smoking crater without also slowing your addictive flash game of choice to a crawl. Architecturally, that kind of sucks; but luckily ad-blocking can take care of most of the spurious flash...

Re:Awesome! (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424388)

And perhaps more interestingly, "native client" is supported, which enables you to run c/c++ apps inside Chrome, sandboxed.

Re:Awesome! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424730)

No, it allows you to run 'restricted' native libraries using exposed APIs, (re)compiled for NaCl, which are then sandboxed.

Re:Awesome! (1)

adamjgp (1229860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424606)

I love Chrome, but the whole Flash Crash bug has me pulling my hair out. I spend an hour a day at work trying to diagnose how to fix the Flash Crash bug. Seriously hope that Adobe and Google can find a fix for this bug, and soon. It's annoying to go stumbling and find that 2/5 stumbles cause flash to break. Maybe I should just hold my breath until flash is a thing of the past.

Re:Awesome! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424216)

Software is almost never stable.

BIBO-stable, yes. For beta-tested values of BI.

Re:Awesome! (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425142)

When I want stability, I use Firefox. Flash also works much better with that browser even though flash always is a hassle on a 64bit os. Chrome on the other hand, smokes Firefix out of the water when it comes to raw speed.

RAM for cache? (2)

TheMadTopher (1020341) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423974)

Can I finally use RAM for the browser's cache like Firefox to avoid frequent hits on my SSD?

Re:RAM for cache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424196)

That might be nice but it's not going to help much... these aren't thumbdrives -- even the fear myth about pagefiles on SSDs has been basically debunked now. SSDs should handle frequent HTML caches even better.

Re:RAM for cache? (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424230)

It's not about lifetime concerns... some SSDs have a slow write time which can be very apparent in normal everyday operation. Granted, I only noticed it when I was fooling around and disabled write caching (platters were also slow, but SSD plain locks the PC for the entire write operation it seems...)

Exactly, & for tasks that do WRITES? NOT GOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425268)

"It's not about lifetime concerns... some SSDs have a slow write time which can be very apparent in normal everyday operation. Granted, I only noticed it when I was fooling around and disabled write caching (platters were also slow, but SSD plain locks the PC for the entire write operation it seems...)" - by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday March 08, @05:28PM (#35424230)

Exactly... that's the 1 area that is not "the greatest" on SSD's based on FLASH ram, which is why I opted for a Gigabyte IRAM instead (4gb DDR-2 RAM)... it's good for write activity too!

I place these things onto it (most are read/write in nature):

1.) Pagefile.sys
2.) %temp% & %tmp% ops (temp environment vars)
3.) %comspec% (command processor cmd.exe)
4.) OS logging (event logs, yes, they are movable)
5.) Application logging (if the app logs, usually movable)
6.) Print Spooler location
7.) WebBrowser caches (Opera11, IE9, MineField FF, Chrome)

APK

P.S.=> In the early to mid 1990's, I used to move ALL of that list above's items off of the main C: drive (usual driveletter for the OS & programs bearing HDD), & onto other HDD's (especially when IDE/EIDE circuitry got "smart enough" to handle things independently, per channel)...

Then, later to software-based RamDrives, as they had less latency than std. mechanical HDD's do!

Then, to a CENATEK RocketDrive (PCI 2.2 bus based SSD, 4gb PC-133 SDRAM)...

And lastly/lately, to an even F A S T E R SSD unit, the Gigabyte IRAM (SATA 150 bus, 4gb DDR-2 RAM)... it works! apk

Re:RAM for cache? (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424344)

There's a "workaround"? (I have not tried this, but I just searched for it...)

http://www.wagnerdanda.me/2010/08/how-to-fix-google-chrome-problems-with-ssd-move-cache-to-ramdisk/ [wagnerdanda.me]

Of course, if you have a spinning disk, that would work as well.

I have, for MONTHS now, & they work... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425004)

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2028366&cid=35424874 [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> And, yes, you're correct: I used to do the same with std. mechanical HDD's too, before I was into RamDrives (in software) or SSD's (ramdisk hardware), etc. ...

"Anything to unburden the MAIN '"C:' drive", in other words (I also place my pagefile.sys, logging from apps & the OS, %temp% ops, & %comspec% + Print Spooler locations onto it)... apk

Re:I have, for MONTHS now, & they work... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425728)

Why don't you take your 30 gigabyte /etc/hosts file and shove it up your ass?

Commandline parameters exist for cache location (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424874)

chrome.exe -disk-cache-dir="Z:\CTmp" --disk-cache-size=40000000 --user-data-dir="Z:\CTmp"

The "-disk-cache-dir" &/or -user-data-dir are PROBABLY going to be of interest to you... they were to me @ least!

(Why? Because I move ALL of my webbrowser programs' caches & userdata to my SSD (Gigabyte IRAM, true SSD 4gb, non-FLASH Ram based (DDR-2) - it's very, Very, VERY F A S T, on both reads & writes is why...)

APK

P.S.=> Hope that helps some... but, I can tell you, right now, there are LOADS more commandline switches for Google Chrome, & those I put up may not be the ONLY ones you'd be interested in... You can "GOOGLE" for more though! apk

Re:RAM for cache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424886)

Does it really matter? By my math, you'd have to browse the web for about 10 years nonstop before SSD wear became an issue.

Another benefit of moving browser caches & mor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425166)

Not only do you "unburden" your MAIN programs & OS bearing disk (typically, C:), but you also lessen the possibility of fragmentation on it, by moving your browser cache(s) from ALL of your webbrowsers...

E.G.-> I move ALL of my browsers (IE, Opera, Chrome, FireFox) to a "True SSD" here (Gigabyte IRAM 4gb DDR-2 RAM)...

I do that, so things access faster (far less latency than std. mechanical HDDs is mostly why, but also for small file access (which WAILS on solid-state disks for reads, any kind)...

Write are also VERY noticeably slower on FLASH based media than the kind of RamDrive/SSD I use here (not based on FLASH RAM is why)!

HOWEVER, again: I also do so, to lessen fragmentation on my main mechanical HDD's too (a "hidden speed benefit" &, one that aids THEIR longevity too, due to less fragmentation).

APK

P.S.=> I used to move ALL of this stuff to HDD's other than C: (the main OS & program bearing disk typically):

1.) WebBrowser caches
2.) Pagefile.sys
3.) OS logging
4.) Application logging
5.) %temp% & %tmp% environs (for temp ops)
6.) %comspec% location
7.) Print Spooler location

apk

Re:RAM for cache? (1)

nitrogensixteen (812667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425440)

Why not just mount the cache directory on the built in ramdisk? Just allocate more space to it when the kernel loads.

Re:RAM for cache? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425906)

Can I finally use RAM for the browser's cache like Firefox to avoid frequent hits on my SSD?

Is a userspace program really a good place for such a feature? It seems kludgey to have individual programs handling their own storing-a-bunch-of-files-in-RAM tasks in their own memory spaces and according to their own fashion, rather than just having a tmpfs(or other OS equivalent) to which the user can configure any program that needs filesystem-like RAM storage to point, without any per-program special features being involved...

Back button (1)

zmooc (33175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424004)

But does the back button work properly? It has been broken for ages on certain sites...

Re:Back button (2, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424134)

But does the back button work properly? It has been broken for ages on certain sites...

out on the net today
i saw a dead head sticker on a cadillac
a voice inside my head said don't look back
you can never look back

'Stable' is so far behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424014)

I've been using Chromium version 54.712 for weeks now.

Old news? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424016)

Since I'm already running Chrome 10.0.648.127, I'd have to think this is old news.

Re:Old news? (1)

Thing I am (761900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424048)

Me too and it still says "beta"

Re:Old news? (1)

mariasama16 (1895136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424142)

Which channel are you running? My installed version using the stable channel is getting updated as we speak, while my install on the dev channel (different computer) has indeed been running version 10 for some time.

Re:Old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424144)

11.0.679.0 and I'm still 2 weeks out of date.

Re:Old news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424166)

I don't know; it seems to be news to me that Google doesn't know how to patch. To get these critical security fixes you have to go from a 9.x version to a 10.x version. Do you know how much Apple, Microsoft, or Mozilla would be pilloried if they made you jump to a new version to get security patches? This whole, "don't fix it, just release a newer full version - no patches" is pretty lame.

Re:Old news? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424220)

Google frequently release security patches for their stable and beta channels.

It's just that this time around, it's time for a more major release. And Google doesn't do the "support old versions" thing.

Re:Old news? (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424252)

For what reason would you not want to go from a 9.x to a 10.x?

Do you have webpages that aren't forward-compatible? Are they locked into a system that can't be updated itself?

That's a you problem. Not a them problem.

Re:Old news? (1)

Lulu of the Lotus-Ea (3441) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425970)

Since I'm at 11.0.686.3, I'm even more blasé about this.

Beta Version (1)

MiniMax333 (885543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424050)

Now my Beta version of Chrome no longer feels very Beta-like :(

Wow! (2)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424054)

Version 10! Oh man, and here I am feeling like a chump with Firefox 4. I'm waaaay behind on my Internet power level compared to Chrome. I gotta switch before I completely miss out on the Internet awesomeness provided by the much newer Chrome 10! It's 6 additional levels of awesomeness people!

// For those who lack the ability to detect sarcasm - mod me down and I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424108)

Power levels are like golf. If you either get it below zero or get it so high it overflows into a negative value, you become indestructible.

Seriously folks, mod him up to five so we are safe! It takes a lot longer to overflow than it does to get to -1!

Re:Wow! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424266)

FWIW, it's actually Firefox 4.0b12

Re:Wow! (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425036)

I'm on 4.0b13pre.

Re:Wow! (4, Funny)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424642)

I'm on Opera 11. How you feel about your puny Chrome 10 now?

Re:Wow! (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425286)

Opera: Crank your browsing experience up to 11!

(posted from Opera 11, oddly enough)

Re:Wow! (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424786)

I was thinking the same thing. This kind of version inflation is ridiculous, they went from beta to version "10" in about 2 years. Wouldn't want to lag behind Internet Explorer 8. Kinda reminds me of when Slackware jumped straight from version 4 to 7.

Re:Wow! (1)

Rotting (7243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425104)

Firefox might have to do that same trick that Slackware did when it was at version 4 :)

Re:Wow! (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425674)

#ifdef sarcasm_detector

Yeah, looks like Chrome (10) finally caught up with IE (9). I mean seriously, IE is so web scale, but I guess Chrome is more web scale than IE now.

#endif

GPU accleration? (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424062)

Is GPU accleration disabled for XP in this version?

Did webgl make a comeback? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424072)

I was all keen on trying it out, but a build in January just crashed horribly, and a few weeks later it seemed to be disabled all together. I have high hopes for webgl, hopefully the browsers will all push it out the door this year.

As long as they stick with that UI (4, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424118)

Then I'll stick with Firefox, it might get a bit bloated but I have my fingers crossed as hardware improves and they end up making the multithreaded code, it'll at least remain the speed it is now, while retaining good functionality for me.

Yes, I know they are copying the _ridiculous_ tabs on the top UI from chrome, it can be disabled in the default options though, no addon required to do so.
Need my status bar down the bottom too.
FireFox 3 needs only one thing for me.
More speed, just more and more speed - that's it. It's otherwise, EXACTLY what I want in a browser.

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1, Troll)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424152)

NCSA Mosaic was pretty decent too...

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424170)

Chrome UI = slick and to the point
Firefox UI = clunky

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424436)

Where "slick and to the point" means "hide things that are useful for some, but most don't care about, by default". And clunky means "show things that most don't care about, but are useful for some, by default".

The only meaningful changes are the tab locations (I get the semantic difference of tabs on top / tabs below - but personally I'm not dim enough to not see beyond the semantics, and know that if I happen to want to click through the tabs, they're in a less error-prone location if they're below), and Chrome apparently not showing the page title in the application titlebar (which also semantically sounds right, but makes alt-tab a bitch, as does using some automation tools like AutoHotKey that have little else to go on than a window's title).

Lucky for me, FireFox 4 is trying to be more like Chrome, so by the time it has lost all of its advantages, I guess it'll make it all the easier to switch.

For those just crying for webpage screen estate.. hit F11. All the webpage space you could want.

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424690)

Interesting. I find myself doing a lot more hunting for stuff in Chrome. Firefox functionality seems to be just there where I need it. At least, after I configure a couple of buttons back into play, and turn off a toolbar or so.

Except the status bar. They're freaking me out with making it go away, then bringing it back only it's broken, etc. But there's a 3rd-party status-bar plugin that makes it behave the old way. I forget the name or I'd plug it here.

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424174)

I pretty much second this. The option for the simplified UI is good, especially for users on netbooks and the like with smaller screens. But, for me I like having a status bar and I prefer my title-bar to be just that, not a place to stick parts of the app.

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424290)

Get off my lawn!

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424336)

as hardware improves

It's 2011. This is your improved hardware.

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424688)

Yes, I know they are copying the _ridiculous_ tabs on the top UI from chrome, it can be disabled in the default options though, no addon required to do so.

Tabs on top works reasonably well in Windows 7 when you're space constrained. i.e. on a 10" netbook you can squeeze the menu and tabs into a single row which saves a lot of space. Now with the status hover working properly that's even more space saved. The screen is so small that the window is more likely to maximized so it's easy to travel and stop over a tab which will be at the top of the display.

I think on large displays, it doesn't work so well. Space is not so critical and the window is less likely to maximized. If you travel and miss the tab when you click you'll send the window to the back by accident which is annoying. In this case IMO tabs underneath work better.

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424974)

From the article:

The new Chrome version is significantly faster in some respects (a 66 percent improvement in JavaScript performance on Google's own V8 benchmark suite)

Is that the speed you're looking for?

Re:As long as they stick with that UI (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425806)

Not when it looks the way it does, nope - it's not the speed I was looking for.

Version numbers (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424122)

The accelerated major version number bumping is ridiculous. Google Chrome is only two years old, and it's already at version 10. In another two years, is it going to be at version 20? Will marketing droids decide that would make Chrome sound too old and decide to slow down the version numbers before then? Because all of this is driven by marketing.

Re:Version numbers (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424260)

It will be higher than version 20 in two years because they are increasing their release pace. Let's assume they slow down to their desired six week release pace, then that's almost 8 versions in a single year.

I agree with the sentiment that version numbers are mostly meaningless, but I have grown accustom to only bumping the major numbers on major feature releases. Improving the JavaScript engine to the degree that they have in the past few releases is impressive, but they are the same effort realized over a short span of time.

Now, I do not mind getting frequent releases, but the version number is a bit of a nuisance. However, I do think that has to do with being a developer rather than being a user (as I know non-developers do not even notice). I also thought that was the purpose of their Courgette [google.com] project was to increase the pace of updates sent to us, making major releases largely less relevant to begin with, except when major new feature releases made it useful (larger code base changes more aligned with "major" releases).

Re:Version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424472)

Somehow I imagine if Google paid you $100 for free you'd find a way to criticize them. "But that money was earned under an illegal monopoly; I deserve it more than they do!"

Re:Version numbers (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424708)

In another two years, is it going to be at version 20?

"Google Chrome Vista."

Amazing JavaScript performance (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424130)

Considering that version 8 apparently increased JavaScript performance by 100% over version 7, version 9 increased it by 50% over version version 8 and now version 10 increased it 66% over version 9, I cannot help but wonder when JavaScript performance will become more maxed out.

Obviously not all JavaScript performance tests are created equally, but their gains are quite impressive nonetheless. Wonder what will happen if when they start using the GPU like IE9?

Re:Amazing JavaScript performance (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424172)

IE 9 uses the GPU for hardware accelerated graphics, not Javascript.

Also, Chrome 10 already does hardware accelerated features. New for this release is GPU accelerated video, but accelerated compositing is in since earlier.

Re:Amazing JavaScript performance (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424720)

It sounds like they're testing lots of features, a few of which are horrendously slow, and fixing the slowest ones each time. So you could see a continuous string of 30-70% improvements in speed, until all of the features run at the same speed.

Disabling my extensions? (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424160)

Improved security with malware reporting and disabling outdated plug-ins by default

I've had a grudge on Google due to their plugin status quo, because I've been burned with firefox and now prefer to update plugins manually. Firefox build numbers change little, and plugins can last through a point-zero-point-one update with no problem. Point one changes break them more.

Chrome updates by full one versions every few months and gives me little choice because their extension model is a lot newer and lacking the community behind it we have in the moz extensions portal. Just the other day an extension was saying that it was disabled because its auto-updated version wanted upgraded [snooping?] privileges. I didn't bother; extension privileges changing randomly is the other problem that Firefox doesn't experience.

For example, IIRC extensions like Google adblock and Readability want my web HISTORY and 2 or 3 other seemingly unrelated things in order to complete the install. Granularity of the privilege ring API so that programmers can give us X service is quoted as the problem. Then I find another extension* that wants nothing and gives me the same results without spying. I'd like to see a link detailing all the privileges and whether history is really linked to hiding page elements.

I've disabled Chrome updates altogether after 8.0 on Windows XP, but extensions seem to continue to auto-update and get disabled pending my um, "relicensing" approval. Is there a way to manually manage extensions in Chrome other than just turning them on or off? Can I block privileges by doing some about:config-style hacks to test if the plugin really needs them?

*except for Chrome adblock which has no other substitutes that I know of

Re:Disabling my extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424552)

You realize the extensions are written in JavaScript. Find the extension folder and spend 2 minutes reading the source code.

Re:Disabling my extensions? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425782)

You realize the extensions are written in JavaScript. Find the extension folder and spend 2+ hours reading the source code.

Fixed and emphasis mine. Code auditing, even for a small plugin, takes hours and sometimes even days, months, years.

Re:Disabling my extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425942)

Extensions aren't plugins, and 9 out of 10 are < 2k LOC. I can't even think off hand of a commonly useful but innately complex extension. So no, most really do take 2 minutes.

Migration guide (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424190)

Someone needs to write a migration guide.

Starting at FF with adblock plus, firebug, flashblock, ghostery, noscript, RIP remove it permanently, view dependencies, and xmarks.

Ending at google chrome with ....

Re:Migration guide (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424740)

with...well...nothing.

Cuz you can't get there from here.

FF FTW.

Re:Migration guide (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425850)

don't bother, something about the chrome plugin infrastructure means plugin blocking can only operate at the page level, either allow or deny all plugins on a page, unlike firefox's noscript which can enable/disable per source domain so you can use a site's scripted navigation without enabling scripts from embedded ads which are more likely to be annoying and more likely to be infected.

Its cool that its fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424316)

but still useless with out a sidebar like Firefox. Been waiting for years for them to add it, and asked friends that work at google why something so simple is missing, nobody has a good answer.

Re:Its cool that its fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424440)

I'm sure the dozens of you who care can use Firefox and quit whinging, right?

Re:Its cool that its fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424820)

I'm sure the dozens of you who care can use Firefox and quit whinging, right?

I will keep asking for this basic feature until its there so I can switch over to it. They got plenty of engineers to do this task its about 3 days with testing worst case. It's really fucking sad that they haven't added it.

Nothing to do with Pwn2Own. At all. No siree ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424350)

"Chrome 10 also addresses 23 security vulnerabilities in the WebKit-based browser (easily more than Google has ever fixed before): 15 rated as High, three rated as Medium, and five rated as Low."

pwn2own: [tippingpoint.com] 9th, 10th, and 11th of March, 2011

'debt', weaponry, gone =+- the wink of an eye? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424372)

math?, physics?, creators, all concur. probably goes on from there? yet to spot the 'last' digit.

Just in time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424418)

Yesterday I was annoyed that the options page for Chrome wouldn't fit on my netbook's screen. Today I upgrade to Chrome 10 to discover that they made the options screen into a webpage. Google is awesome.

Hurray! 10 (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424550)

Now it is a stable mature product. Twice as good as Safari 5. Much better than IE 8. Not quite as good as Opera 11. And Firefox should hang it's neck in shame for barely reaching 4.

When the "navigational services" spyware is off by default, when third party cookie rejection a feature that is no longer hidden, and when Flashblock is installed by default, let me know. Otherwise it is just another tool for Google to track me.

Re:Hurray! 10 (1)

AntEater (16627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424696)

Now it is a stable mature product. Twice as good as Safari 5. Much better than IE 8. Not quite as good as Opera 11. And Firefox should hang it's neck in shame for barely reaching 4.

Bah! That's nothing. I browse using Emacs and that's on version 23.

A stable version of Chrome -- that's different! (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424592)

I gave up using it a long time ago since it was such a mess.
Maybe it's better now. It still lacks most of the stuff & add-ons that FF has which make it such a good web programming/debugging tool.
Most lacking feature in Chrome: multi-row tabs.

Booksmarks (1)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424950)

Now how about we get you fellas a good ass bookmarks manager, huh? Wouldn't that just be dandy?

That's all Google Chrome needs for me now.

Re:Booksmarks (3, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425012)

Now how about we get you fellas a good ass bookmarks manager, huh?

You're having problems managing your ass bookmarks, are you?

Re:Booksmarks (1)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425204)

My browser gets lots of ass annnnnnd I like to bookmark them all.

My browser goes to 11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425068)

Wow it must be better than IE because IE is only 9 and this one is 10!

MY BROWSER GOES TO 11!

No thanks! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425214)

No thanks! I'm gonna wait until the beta version comes out.

I had gone back to Safari... (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425288)

Since Chrome's flash plugin didn't have the goodies that Flash 10.2 gave (really reduced my CPU usage on web video sites, made 1080p flash video usable).
Does Chrome 10 for Mac include the latest Flash hardware acceleration for OSX?

Re:I had gone back to Safari... (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425582)

Why don't you type about:plugins in a Chrome window and tell us ? (Btw, yes, it has 10.2).

Smooth (1)

cracauer (6353) | more than 3 years ago | (#35425324)

[firefox user's voice] ... but my extensions didn't break. You sure this is a real upgrade?

Ther version number must = the user base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425510)

Someone looked at the source code - better increment the version.

Not stable at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35425666)

I sure as shit wouldn't call it stable, it crashes on me 3 to 4 times a day.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?