×

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!

First Look At Chrome 10

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the new-shiny-pretty-ok dept.

Chrome 206

jbrodkin writes "Boosted JavaScript performance, Adobe Flash sandboxing, password encryption and an overhauled settings interface are among the new features in Google Chrome 10. JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

206 comments

I'll wait for Chrome 11... (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449194)

...because it's 1 version more.

Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449344)

No need to wait. The beta Chrome 11 is out.

In fact, why stop there?

Chrome 12 is available now: http://www.conceivablytech.com/6141/products/google-chrome-12-surfaces

Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449854)

JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark.

Cool story, bro. I'll wait a little bit until I get these same features in Chromium [wikipedia.org]. Won't take long.

It is good this way. You don't care about your privacy then you help Google advertise so you help fund the people doing most of the coding. The rest of us thank you for that. You do care about your privacy then you find yourself in a tiny minority that can be treated like a rounding error if you're an advertiser the size of Google.

This way everyone gets what they want. The world is more ideal than it often seems.

Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449378)

...because it's 1 version more.

Yeah, but why not just make version 10 better?

Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449572)

Why wait? I'm writing this in Chromium 11.0.679.

Re:I'll wait for Chrome 11... (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449632)

Well, since Google says "versions don't matter anymore" and they're planning on releasing every six weeks, they'll be on version 18 by the end of the year.

what about the botnet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449212)

Did Google do anything about the Chrome botnet?

JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned off (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449214)

"Boosted JavaScript performance"

I have JavaScript turned off all of the time... Why is such at problematic feature boasted about as the most significant feature.

JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned off!!!

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned (4, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449420)

Because people like you who turn JavaScript off are tiny minority of users. Almost everyone else actually uses and enjoys it.

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned (2, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449500)

Almost everyone uses it. Few enjoy it.

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449708)

[citation needed]

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35450004)

I guess that rarely used Firefox plug-in NOSCRIPT should be depricated. I mean really NO ONE uses it!!! Because we all just LOVE virus vectors, flashing, blinking and any number of annoying content.

Oh wait, you're full of ShipppppppppppppppppppppsssssssssssT...

Do you work for Google???

Go ahead Mod me down... I take pride in having a dissenting opinion especially when it is the Dominant feeling among web users...

Re: JavaScript the fastest feature that is turned (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35450022)

Most users of NoScript have a non-empty whitelist of sites which are permitted to run scripts. Those that actually do something useful - like, you know, Slashdot.

On a side note, you also, apparently, take pride in Capitalizing random Nouns. ~

Version 10 (2)

moberry (756963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449222)

I remember installing Chrome when it first came out and them almost immediately uninstalling it. Either it or Symantec EP had a bug, and the browser window would immediately crash. 9 versions later... these guys have made an absolutely incredible product. I simply don't know what I'd do without my bookmark sync. Their app store needs some work, though, right now it's more of a bookmark store.

Re:Version 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449282)

I agree, the built-in bookmark sync is excellent, it's why I switched. The tear-off tabs are great too, and the unibar is cool too.

Not being sarcastic here, I love Chrome!

Not a Google fanboy though, I hate gmail.

Re:Version 10 (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449482)

I'm curious now. If you don't mind my asking, which, if any, free email service do you use? What are the specific features or problems you face that makes you dislike gmail?

Re:Version 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449744)

If a person hates GMail, then the only other option would be a private server or they use their own client to download their email if they use email at all. Maybe this person only talks through the Book of Faces.

Re:Version 10 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449936)

Hotmail is certainly on par with Gmail. Hotmail integrates with Windows Live, Skydrive and Messenger. Gmail integrates Google Talk and Google Voice

Re:Version 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35450066)

Yeah, um... no. Not even close.

Waste my Time! (4, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449238)

Ack! TFA is a seven or eight page "slideshow" that has pretty much zero actual comment. What a waste.

And I actually really LIKE Chrome (on the PC; Opera on the phone).

Re:Waste my Time! (5, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449268)

Worse. My flipping of the "pages" was interrupted by an ad. I don't know why people want humanoid robots because it's obvious that if they're anything like the electronics we have now they're just going to be rude, annoying, obnoxious, fucking assholes.

Re:Waste my Time! (4, Funny)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449668)

I don't know why people want humanoid robots because it's obvious that if they're anything like the electronics we have now they're just going to be rude, annoying, obnoxious, fucking assholes.

So what you're saying is that you're afraid we wouldn't be able to tell them apart from humans?

Re:Waste my Time! (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449334)

Well, the slideshow does say "first look". So maybe the author simply wants to introduce the latest and greatest of Chrome 10 to users who want something more visual [blogspot.com] the release notes.

Chrome and Linux don't jive (1)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449242)

At least for me, I've been trying to make it work for more than a year, with the latest version but it is buggy as hell. I'll give it a try when they come with a new version for Linux.

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (2)

Dilligent (1616247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449276)

huh?
ive been running chrome on ubuntu for ages now and never ever had even one issue with it. im actually running the unstable versions and theyre perfectly fine.
i cant see your problem

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449640)

Well, on Windows at least, if you set the machine to enforce DEP for all processes (or just use EMET to enforce DEP for Chrome.exe), Chrome will never auto-update again. In fact, to get it to update you have to uninstall it and then install the latest version from the Google website. Any current apps that can't work with DEP (Data Execution Prevention, also called NX for No Execute) are by definition buggy and problematic. Google shouldn't be trying to execute pages marked as data.

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35450092)

What? Enforcing DEP is the first thing I always do on 64-bit Windows and I've never had issues with Chrome updating. Methinks something is FUBAR with your machine.

If DEP was the problem then the update service would crash. I seriously doubt Google added an exception handler which caught and ignored it.

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (1)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449764)

Always the same console message, as far as I can tell, it is a chrome bug. It just hangs. $ chrome /usr/bin/chrome: /opt/google/chrome/libz.so.1: no version information available (required by /usr/bin/chrome) /opt/google/chrome/chrome: /opt/google/chrome/libz.so.1: no version information available (required by /opt/google/chrome/chrome)

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (2)

belgianguy (1954708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449288)

Chrome 10.0.648.127 beta and Ubuntu jiving just fine over here...
After a clean install, I installed the stable version on another machine yesterday, through the commandline, even!
http://www.ubuntuupdates.org/ppas/8 [ubuntuupdates.org]

Amazing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449904)

After a clean install, I installed the stable version on another machine yesterday, through the commandline, even!

I saw the link. Congratulations. You can follow simple instructions in which the ready to use, literal, verbatim commands are provided for you.

Wow. Next thing ya know, you'll be performing tasks that require abstract thought! Oh man, you must be filled with anticipation.

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449300)

See: Chromium

Re:Chrome and Linux don't jive (1)

tgetzoya (827201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449608)

I've used Chrome since version 5 on Ubuntu (and now Arch) and I haven't had a single issue with it. Firefox liked to randomly crash on me as I loaded large images when using Ubuntu, but on Arch they both work just fine.

lol javascript (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449252)

Javascript benchmarkS? You mean chrome's own benchmark? Because it's scoring less in SunSpider, and it's certainly not beating IE9 in it. Not that this matters a whole lot, anyway.

Re:lol javascript (1)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449270)

Regardless of who's faster than who by which benchmark, I don't really know why people care so much about loading a page 105 milliseconds faster.

Re:lol javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449318)

Don't knock it. When you're working in a browser all day, loading hundreds of pages, that adds up to seconds saved per day!

Re:lol javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449484)

Regardless of who's faster than who by which benchmark, I don't really know why people care so much about loading a page 105 milliseconds faster.

It matters to the bigger picture, which people like google get to see. Seconds a day per person per browser world wide is a lot more eyes on adds for a lot more hours.

For actual people, media and yours truly. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

Re:lol javascript (1)

tjohns (657821) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449538)

It makes a big difference for web-based applications that are implemented primarily in JavaScript.

For example: If you're designing slides for a presentation, playing a 3D game, or editing a photo -- things that are graphics heavy and CPU intensive -- you want to get as much performance out of the JS interpreter as possible.

Re:lol javascript (2, Insightful)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449890)

It's not about pageload time. It's about the ability to run JS heavy pages in a non-painful way. It's about running current JS pages faster, and making what is currently too expensive to implement in a browser usable. Just look at the many many JS based tests, games, and demos that are being developed.
I'm not saying that moving computationally heavy things into the browser is a good idea, but it does appear to be where things are headed; Talking about a few ms of pageload time is missing the issue entirely.

won't load on firefox 4 rc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449254)

the site loads but no text.. works on ie. lame.

What benchmark? (5, Informative)

benjymouse (756774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449278)

TFA is a little thin - it is basically a slideshow.

Still, IE9 beats out Chrome 10 in webkits own sunspider benchmark. On my old rig:
IE9: 348.2ms +/- 0.8%
Chrome: 446.0ms +/- 1.9%

Re:What benchmark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449382)

My score was about 242 with Chrome. Safari 305. Taken on a Mac Pro 2.66ghz, 6GB.

Re:What benchmark? (0)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449428)

Wasn't that the benchmark where IE9 "cheated"?

Re:What benchmark? (1)

brobins8 (2012422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449514)

If they never changed the benchmark to prevent the dead code removal (which is a valid optimization) in IE9 from kicking in, it's probably not a very good benchmark to compare Chrome with IE9.

Re:What benchmark? (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449540)

Pretty much. MS says it was a "dead code" optimization but others who tested it believe it's a bug in their engine that just happens to be working in their favor on that test. In ether case the SunSpider benchmark cant be used to judge IE9. The benchmark isn't intended to test its ability to find dead code and skip over it. Its intended to see how long it takes to run a particular piece of code.

Re:What benchmark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449720)

Compiling/JITing code is a part of running the code. If your compiler has optimizations like removing functions that are never used, that seems perfectly fair to me. If that makes compiling faster and thus running the page/code faster... again, seems fair to me. How one determines if the code can never be used, that I dont know in the case of javascript (not an expert).

Re:What benchmark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449734)

it is basically a slideshow.

No way!

networkworld.com/slideshows/2011/031011-google-chrome10.html#slide1

Outdated plugin autodisable (1)

Oasiz (1017554) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449280)

While I really like the idea I can already imagine getting million phone calls from relatives/various people on why they can't access various sites or the internet bank because of an outdated java (or something else). Sometimes even if you tell them that upgrades are necessary & good for the system they still think that all the nag screens are not normal and think that there is something wrong (go figure), plus most people are kind of helpless until you either go there and fix it yourself or spending some time on the phone and guiding step by step.
I already tried this with a few nightly builds and I had to manually enable java 3 times during one online bank session. Once it even forced me to enable it two times in the row. Sure I tend to keep it updated all the time but back then It wasn't up to date, having 3 nag screens when you are in a hurry is a bit frustrating.. :p

I do hope there is a way to disable this (or tone it down), The idea itself is great though.

If you can make complete junk run real fast (3)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449286)

You might be able to pretend you're not running complete junk. The benchmark should use a heavy Slashdot comment page. If it can load in three seconds, you gotta winner.

Dupe? (4, Informative)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449298)

"Google Releases Stable Version of Chrome 10 [slashdot.org]"

Is it really this hard for /. editors to use the handy little search function this site provides and see if a story is a dupe? This story was even posted two days ago (albeit on a different website but it's pretty much the same thing).

Re:Dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449666)

They're not really editors anymore. They're just users who get paid and have more mod points.

12% faster JavaScript! (2)

shitetaco (1954742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449328)

<breathless>JavaScript pages should now load 12% faster than in previous versions, and Chrome 10 beats IE9 by at least 50% in a JavaScript benchmark.</breathless>

I just came in my pants! 12% faster!

Re:12% faster JavaScript! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449860)

Want to know what the slow part of my browser is. The server on the other end of the world serving up 2 meg worth of images, html, and javascript, and then another 55 meg of audio and video.

Get MORE SPEED outta Chrome! apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449332)

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!

(I move ALL of my webbrowser programs' caches (IE9, Opera 11.x, FireFox RC1, & Chrome) is why!)

Not just caches, but, also - Userdata!

All of that, & MORE, to my SSD (Gigabyte IRAM, true SSD 4gb, non-FLASH Ram based (DDR-2))

Hey - it's very, Very, VERY F A S T, on both reads & writes is why, unlike FLASH Ram based solutions, & will last longer too + more reliably.

Faster, is good...!

Especially w/ smallish files, like webbrowser caches are mostly...

My SSD's 4kb formatted to match the memmgt subsystem, & also NTFS compressed + realtime defragged...

So I double my space (MORE than double with repetitive text data, & a lot of this IS that kind of text, try 10x space gains here if not more)

All that, & instant RAMDrive access/seek speeds too... beat that with a stick, & enjoy the commandline if you're a Chrome freak.

More of a diehard Opera fan here (Italian Opera rules though!)

APK

P.S.=> I also place my pagefile.sys, OS Event Logging, App logging, %temp%, %tmp%, & %comspec% pointed there on the Gigabyte IRAM also (i.e.-> cmd.exe is there, & all OS + apps do temp ops there))...

That alone really unburdens the slower disks (& also stops the wearing out of them, faster, too & lessens fragmentation as well on them)...

So I unloaded them!

They need it by comparison in speed is why (Yes, even w/ a WD Velociraptor 10k rpm 300gb here)... Do I notice though that my HDD's are faster? Sure... less queued up work, less interference, etc.

RamDrives/SSD's (True Ones like I use that is, NOT flash) are awesome for systems that "just respond" instantly, to anything, & lots of it multitasked... apk

Re:Get MORE SPEED outta Chrome! apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449394)

This could have been an interesting, if only slightly odd, comment to the story.

However, because of the fact that you obnoxiously repeat it a thousand million times per story like you do with all your other comments, it just made me hate your guts so much I hope they explode in a bloody rain of tissue, acid, and half-processed food that showers every single exposed surface of your computer, making it inoperable so that once you exhale your final breath, no one can ever be infected by whatever residual craziness is left in your oh-so-awesome rig.

"Her Favorite Color Is Chrome" (had to) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449432)

Her Favorite Color Is Chrome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmAAaXI8riY [youtube.com]

---

LOL: Ordinarily, I'm not much into country, but... that tune says it for me... hot rodding a PC, is just like anything else, & worth it (& little tricks start adding up to a LOT, a noticeable lot).

APK

P.S.=> "Hotrod your LIFE" baby, yes, even your browsers, why? Well, why not, & also, lol, because of her favorite color... lol! You know what that is by now, don't you? It's also the topic... & you ought to try staying on it sometime! Thanks... apk

"Her favorite color is Chrome!" (had to) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449548)

Her Favorite Color Is Chrome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmAAaXI8riY [youtube.com] [youtube.com]

---

LOL: Ordinarily, I'm not much into country, but... that tune says it for me... hot rodding a PC, is just like anything else, & worth it (& little tricks start adding up to a LOT, a noticeable lot)...

APK

P.S.=> "Hotrod your LIFE" baby, yes, even your browsers, why? Well, why not, & also, lol, because of her favorite color... lol! You know what that is by now, don't you? It's also the topic... & you ought to try staying on it sometime! Thanks... apk

Re:Get MORE SPEED outta Chrome! apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449798)

be glad he hasn't started talking about his /etc/hosts file yet. Hey APK: make sure you defrag your drive so you 30 gigabyte hosts file will load as fast as possible!!!!

Question: WHAT'S HER FAVORITE COLOR, troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449972)

Just answer the question in my subject-line: Then? Then, you'd be @ least, lol, SLIGHTLY on topic here!

Here, let me help with "Visual Aids", lol, for a learning disabled troll like yourself:

---

Her Favorite Color Is Chrome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmAAaXI8riY [youtube.com]

(Copyright/Patent Pending by APK (before GOOGLE does, lol!))

---

LOL: Ordinarily, I'm not much into country, but... YES, lol, that tune says it for me, especially in response to this from you, trolls:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2032058&cid=35449394 [slashdot.org]

(So, just ANSWER THE QUESTION IN MY SUBJECT-LINE, & then? Then, you'd be @ least SLIGHTLY on topic, instead of just being the troll you clearly, are!)

APK

P.S.=> Ah, yes, as is "per-my-usual"? That was JUST "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", & especially vs. these puny /. off-topic TROLLS! lol... apk

11 dev (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449338)

You guys are still talking about 10 stable. How about 11.0.696.1 dev? Works great!

"beats IE9" ??? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449356)

If we're benchmarking unreleased software how about going head to head with FireFox 5? We'll only have to wait a month or so of If FireFox is on the same release schedule as Chrome.

Re:"beats IE9" ??? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449474)

IE9 and FF4 are both in RC status. The performance should be identical to the released versions. IE9 is coming out on Monday, so there won't be any performance differences.

babys et al; in with the censorship, deletions.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449408)

& all that other scared/angry behavior...
another glance at our intentions;

1. DEWEAPONIZATION (not a real word, but they like it) almost nothing else good happens until some progress here.

2. ALL BABYS CREATED/TO BE TREATED, EQUALLY. (a rough interpretation (probably cost us. seems like a no-brainer but they expressed that we fail on that one too(:)->) 'we do not need any 300$ 'strollers', or even to ride in your smelly cars/planes etc..., until such time as ALL of the creators' innocents have at least food, shelter, & some loving folks nearby.' again, this is a deal breaker, so pay attention, that's cheap enough, & could lead to our survival?

3. THOU SHALT NOT VACCINATE IRRESPONSIBLY. this appears to be a stop-gap intention.

the genuine feelings expressed included; in addition to the lack of acknowledgment of the advances/evolution of our tiny bodies/dna (including consciousness & intellect), almost nobody knows anymore what's in those things (vaccines) (or they'd tell us), & there's rumor much of it is less than good (possibly fatal) for ANY of us. if it were good for us we'd be gravitating towards it, instead of it being shoved in our little veins, wrecking them, & adversely affecting our improving immune systems/dna/development? at rite-aid, they give the mommies 100$ if they let them stick their babys with whoknowswhat? i can see why they're (the little ones) extremely suspicious? they're also asking that absolutely nobody be allowed to insert those corepirate nazi 'identity' 'chips' in their tiny frames. they know who they, and we, are, much better than we ever will? many, oddly? have fading inclinations to want to be reporters of nefarious life threatening processes, ie. 'conspiracies', as they sincerely believe that's 'stuff that REALLY matters', but they KNOW that things are going to be out in the open soon, so they intend to put their ever increasing consciousness, intellect, acute/astute senses & information gathering abilities, to the care & feeding of their fellow humans. no secrets to cover up with that goal.

4. AN END TO MANUFACTURED 'WEATHER'.

sortie like a no-(aerosol tankers)-fly zone being imposed over the whole planet. the thinking is, the planet will continue to repair itself, even if we stop pretending that it's ok/nothing's happening. after the weather manipulation is stopped (& it will be) it could get extremely warm/cold/blustery some days. many of us will be moving inland..., but we'll (most of us anyway) be ok, so long as we keep our heads up. conversely, the manufactured 'weather' puts us in a state of 'theater' that allows US to think that we needn't modify our megaslothian heritage of excessiveness/disregard for ourselves, others, what's left of our environment etc...? all research indicates that spraying chemicals in the sky is 100% detrimental to our/planet's well being (or they'd talk to US about it?). as for weather 'extremes', we certainly appear to be in a bleeding rash of same, as well as all that bogus seismic activity, which throws our advanced tiny baby magnets & chromosomes into crisis/escape mode, so that's working? we're a group whose senses are more available to us (like monkeys?) partly because we're not yet totally distracted by the foibles of man'kind'. the other 'part' is truly amazing. we saw nuclear war being touted on PBS as an environmental repair tool (?depopulation? (makes the babys' 'accountants' see dark red:-(-? yikes. so what gives?

  thanks for your patience & understanding while we learn to express our intentions. everybody has some. let us know. come to some of our million baby play-dates. no big hurry? catch your breath. we'll wait a bit more. thanks.

do the math. check out YOUR dna/intentional healing potential. thanks again.

Nice Javascript Benchmarking (2)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449438)

Written by John Resig for Mozilla:
http://dromaeo.com/ [dromaeo.com]

I'm interested in seeing how much DOM manipulation improves w/ Chrome 10.

Re:Nice Javascript Benchmarking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35450006)

The closest thing I have found to NoScript in Chrome. Works well.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Re:Nice Javascript Benchmarking (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35450094)

The straight DOM modification was the only test where FF4RC1 was significantly faster than Chrome 10 for me. FF was about twice as fast there but Chrome was 1.4x faster on the prototype test and 1.2x faster on the jquery version. Overall through the DOM manipulation tests Chrome 10 averaged about twice as high as FF4 and had instances up to 8x faster. That's pretty much what I've found in my day to day browsing experience as well.

NoScript? (3, Insightful)

AnotherScratchMonkey (592037) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449440)

I'm still waiting for NoScript [noscript.net], so I can use Chrome without being blasted with pop-unders and unwanted noisy video ads. Until then, I'll suffer the slowness of Firefox.

Re:NoScript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449524)

Try privoxy [privoxy.org]: it works with every browser out there, I use it with lynx!

Re:NoScript? (1)

AnotherScratchMonkey (592037) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449648)

The NoScript author makes this objection [informaction.com] to privoxy:

there are so many ways to obfuscate active content while it goes through the pipes (i.e. before it gets parsed by the browser) that trying to block it through a proxy (even though it's been attempted by proxomitron and similar projects) is futile.

I don't know enough about this to be able to evaluate his statement.

Re:NoScript? (2)

jackdub (1938908) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449726)

You can, however, install AdBlock from the Chrome Extensions page and receive malware resistance +1

Re:NoScript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35450034)

The closest thing I have found to NoScript in Chrome. Works well.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Master Password (1)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449444)

Does it have a master password yet? Until then there's no way I can use it.

Re:Master Password (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449534)

Agreed! Why won't they add this basic feature...

I got your "master password".... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449782)

I got your "master password", RIGHT HERE!

Re:Master Password (3, Informative)

BlortHorc (305555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35450026)

Does it have a master password yet? Until then there's no way I can use it.

Though the 7 slides in TFA contain almost no content at all, this was in fact one of the questions answered: yes, they now have a master password.

No, thanks. (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449512)

I won't touch Chrome as long as it has that horrible interface that looks completely alien in any operating system.

Re:No, thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449574)

Odd, the UI is one of the reasons I tend towards it.

To each their own, can't please everyone, and all that jazz..

Browser Wars (1)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449536)

I realize there's not one best browser--each one could use some improvement in comparison to the standards of others.
For example, in my personal experience,Firefox's bookmark organization far outweighs that of Chrome's, Safari (though a bit slower), renders pdf pages faser than Chrome's, and in general, Chrome is faster than all the others when loading web pages.
  Still, I think Chrome is definitely starting to pull ahead of the game. They seem to have the resources capable of doing so in any case.

Flash sandboxing busted (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449626)

Flash seems to be busted for me on Chrome 10. The controls will not work always on youtube. also most of the time if I click a different tab then go back, Flash is replaced with the content of the other tab (it shows what would be in the same location if I was on the other tab). This is happening on my work machine, work laptop and home PC. ::sadface::

I have been ejoying the FF RC though.

2 things i like to do... (1)

mcn (112855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449718)

can i adjust the max width of my bookmark menu when i pull them out? can i fix the status bar permanently at the bottom?

one example of faster being slower (3, Interesting)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449770)

Firefox is still faster in at least one real-world web app that matters to me. A free GPS smartphone app called Waze lets you edit and make corrections to the map by signing in to your account on their website. Their editor at http://www.waze.com/cartouche/ [waze.com] is where you make these edits, and Firefox is amazingly responsive with this web app. Chrome, on the other hand, has been getting more and more aggravating to use with this app. User input responsiveness has been getting worse and worse ever since Google starting making huge gains in their javascript performance. If I click on a road segment in Firefox it pretty much instantly gets selected and highlighted. There is a very large delay in doing the same thing in Chrome. In Firefox, if I click on some point in the map and drag to move my view of the map, the map starts moving right away. If I do the same in Chrome I get the same glacial delay before it starts moving the map, and every time you drag the mouse before letting go of the mouse button there is the same delay before your movement translates to movement of the map. In fact, any and all user interactions with the app involves an awful lot of delay. And why, I don't know. How come it's perfectly fluid in Firefox, and in Chrome it's an exercise in patience? If Chrome is *that* much faster, why is it an insane amount slower to edit Waze maps with it?

Re:one example of faster being slower (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449914)

You should report this as a performance regression bug in the Chromium bug tracker. It is DOM-related or rendering-related. These seem to be areas that have been neglected due to overshadowing by all the Chrome JS performance work.

Re:one example of faster being slower (1)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449982)

ok, I did that. I don't know if I described it very well, but here it is anyway. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=75734 [google.com]

Re:one example of faster being slower (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35450014)

Good job, the Chromium developers do seem to pay attention to the external bug tracker, since that's all they have. (In stark contrast to the Android bug tracker, incidentally. :( )

So don't get me wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449812)

But I mean, javascript has been around forever and they are still optimizing and making it run faster??? Why can't they just make it run fast, period? Do browser makers really have to play this game of "I gots 12% faster in JS then you did, what can you do?"

Also, you know what runs faster then javascript? Native machine code. Which is why I think trying to make a browser into an OS is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

Chrome is good, Chrome OS is dumb, period.

I wish they'd spend more time on DOM optimization (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35449906)

I wish they'd spend more time on optimizing operations that modify the DOM, and not just focus on JS optimization. The DOM is still a huge bottleneck.

Reply.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35449990)

I personally like the idea of google in bringing thin client OS and making applications web based. It works grate in countries like US but countries running with low internet bandwidths will really suffer -- who knows, things might change by the time final version is out. We will be able to talk more when the final version is OUT..

steve barbarich [giftsguru.com], directtohomeappliances [articlewagon.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...