×

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 Chrome 27 Is Out: 5% Faster Page Loads

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the still-winning-the-version-race-against-firefox dept.

Chrome 195

An anonymous reader writes "Google on Tuesday released Chrome version 27 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The new version features a big boost to page loads (now 5 percent faster on average) as well as significant updates for developers. The speed improvement is thanks to the introduction of 'smarter behind-the-scenes resource scheduling,' according to Google. Starting with this release, the scheduler more aggressively uses an idle connection and demotes the priority of preloaded resources so that they don’t interfere with critical assets."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

195 comments

Holy Mackerel (1)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | about a year ago | (#43790203)

Golly, Mr Wizard. I'm gonna pitch Firefox now.

Re:Holy Mackerel (5, Funny)

rcjhawk (713563) | about a year ago | (#43790255)

Loaded 27 onto my laptop. It was so fast, the computer launched itself out of the house at FTL speed and is now tweeting from somewhere around Alpha Centauri.
Guess I'll replace it with a Chromebook.

Re:Holy Mackerel (2)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43791247)

Page used to load really fast in 1990s in mosaic then, Netscape as long as you had something like a T1 connection. Now, funnily enough, the software layer involved in serving dynamic content and all the xml, third party sites and what not network calls the browser has to make before actually counting the page as loaded make it seem like the software layer has become the bottle-neck. This sounds silly to me, maybe we over did a bit?

Re:Holy Mackerel (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790751)

Sure, if you like Google knowing what you're browsing. I just dumped Chrome after several years for Firefox.

It's too easy to use Google for everything.

Re:Holy Mackerel (5, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43790965)

If you want a Google Chrome like browser I would recommend Chromium, which unlike Google Chrome is open source and doesn't track you as much as their proprietary product. You will miss out on some of the extra features available only in Google Chrome, but most of it should be the same.

Re:Holy Mackerel (0)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43791019)

which unlike Google Chrome is open source and doesn't track you as much as their proprietary product.

eyebrows go up. doesn't track as much? is that the best we can hope for these days? also, stop pointing your goog glasses at me!

I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790231)

Come on, USA! Catch up to the rest of the world.

Re:I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (0, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43790303)

Ah, yes, does the "USA SUX0Rz!" flame ever get old on Slashdot? It truly is evergreen. Next time try spelling it "AmeriKKKa" for that extra authenticity.

Re:I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790393)

Getting touchy are we? Frustrated people aren't bowing at your feet anymore? Have you tried acting like a normal human being instead of getting constantly ultra-defensive about your country? ... It's not just on Slashdot btw but everywhere, on the net and IRL. I live just North of the border and people start ranting about Americans all the time, without being prompted. This was not the case 15 years ago. Think about it.

Re:I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790509)

Getting touchy are we? Frustrated people aren't bowing at your feet anymore? Have you tried acting like a normal human being instead of getting constantly ultra-defensive about your country? ... It's not just on Slashdot btw but everywhere, on the net and IRL. I live just North of the border and people start ranting about Americans all the time, without being prompted. This was not the case 15 years ago. Think about it.

B-b-but we have a black president...

\s

I get 40Mbps/5Mbps (actual speed usually ~36Mbps) from my local telco in the U.S., and I'm in fly-over American nowhere near the coast, so I really don't have a clue why there is so much complaining about Internet in the U.S. I have Netflix and tons of computers, and I'm not even close to saturating my link. It's the fastest in my area, though many cities around where I live have 1Gbps access. I pay a decent chunk of cash for my access, but it certainly isn't anything I can't afford. Some areas (which are usually more rural) have fewer options and slower access, and other areas have it better than I do.

Re:I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790693)

B-b-but we have a black president...

Well, it's kind of like he's black, anyway.

Re:I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43791147)

He wasn't BORN black, that's the thing.

Re:I'd rather have a 10x faster connection. (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43791445)

It's called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Look it up. It's a mental illness that causes people to start ranting apropos of nothing.

Text colors and fonts.. (0, Troll)

gonk (20202) | about a year ago | (#43790233)

It might be fast, but their font rendering sucks and they can't get text colors right. For those two reasons alone, I stick to FF. And yes, these are known bugs that have just not been fixed.

Re:Text colors and fonts.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790257)

huh? I don't use Chrome enough to care, but Firefox (on windows) is unreadable with css fonts.

Re: Text colors and fonts.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790363)

Really? You are one strange douche bag.

Re:Text colors and fonts.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790551)

Chrome is optimized for Comic Sans. Other fonts are for pretentious hipsters.

Ridiculous (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790267)

That version number inflation sucks hard. Considering the evolution since the beginning or Chrome, this should be version 1.26 not 27.

5% (2, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year ago | (#43790271)

CPUs are magnitudes faster today than they were 10 years ago. Why is it that pages still take seconds to load? Go back 10 years and they still took the same amount of time. Why?

Re: 5% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790315)

Because ten years ago web pages did a whole lot less. Also, CPU speed has little or nothing to do with how fast information can travel from a server to your...oh, I'm feeding a troll, aren't I?

Re:5% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790317)

Because websites are not the same as they were 10 years ago either

Re:5% (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#43790319)

The same reason that Angband ran faster than Far Cry 3; modern webpages are doing more than the text-and-occasional-link of 10 years ago.

Re:5% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43791361)

IT is still pretty retarded if webpage loading time is CPU-bound.
Gives a pretty good indication how horribly bad HTML is as a language for describing modern webpages.

Re:5% (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#43791463)

They're not CPU bound; I said they're "doing more" - like pulling javascript APIs from half a dozen different web services, loading massive (compared to 2003) images, buffering video, and doing who knows what with javascript.

Re:5% (1)

ndrw (205863) | about a year ago | (#43790325)

Because web pages now are exponentially more complicated and ridiculous than pages were ten years ago?

Because as bandwidth has increased, the size of web pages has increased?

Bandwidth has really only increased marginally due to massive monopolistic control of the US networking market?

Re:5% (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43790337)

CPUs are magnitudes faster today than they were 10 years ago. Why is it that pages still take seconds to load? Go back 10 years and they still took the same amount of time. Why?

I'd assume that web devs(and their bean-counter overlords) are calibrating to user demands, not to the absolute objective of cutting down load times.

More bandwidth? Hey, we can replace all those 256-color .gifs and solid backgrounds with non-crunchy jpegs! More still? How about some Flash videos? Ooh, faster CPU? If we just load 20kb worth of javascript we can do all kinds of things without the old forms/refresh dance by doing xmlhttprequests and twiddling the DOM...

If you were content with the web page of 10 years ago, on today's hardware, it'd likely load like a bat, with a jetpack, on amphetamines, out of hell. It would also be comparatively spartan(though, given that much of what we have today is a nearly proper superset of ten years ago, there wouldn't be much stopping you from doing 10-year-old page styles on modern browsers.)

max-width: 32em (0)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43790401)

Take a 10- to 15-year-old page and style it with body { margin: 0 auto; padding: 2em 0.5em; max-width: 32em } to keep line lengths sane. After this, you'll have a usable first attempt at a mobile version.

Re:5% (5, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43791049)

given that much of what we have today is a nearly proper superset of ten years ago, there wouldn't be much stopping you from doing 10-year-old page styles on modern browsers

[blink]i disagree![/blink]

Re:5% (4, Informative)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#43790341)

Same reason applications that used to fit on a floppy and launched in 5 seconds on a 33 mhz computer now require multiple DVDs and still take 5 seconds to launch: more features (whether necessary or not) and better graphics and other resources. Pages in 2003 probably used more highly-compressed graphics and didn't rely half as much on externally-loaded fonts and all sorts of Javascript garbage (including 3rd-party-loaded material such as Facebook "Like" buttons that allow Facebook to track your every move around the web).

Re:5% (3, Interesting)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year ago | (#43790345)

Pages are magnitudes more complex now. The average page will be 1 to 3 MB in size with thousands of lines of js. If you disable js websites become incredibly fast.

Re:5% (2)

complete loony (663508) | about a year ago | (#43790535)

Web pages without scripting are really fast when they don't show you anything at all.

Re:5% (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year ago | (#43791105)

I run Firefox/Aurora with NoScript - even basic pages showing a single picture (IMGUR and its friends) doesn't work.
Somehow, being given a unique URL and showing the related picture requires client-side script in order to load said picture.

Meanwhile, to get a faster internet, add Facebook and select Google domains to your internet filter (in router, AdBlock or whichever you prefer), and surfing suddenly gets more than 5% faster for most of the internets.

Re:5% (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790549)

Absolutely, thanks to all the spyware scripts like:

http://google-analytics.com/trackme.js
http://scorecardresearch.com/wetrackyou.js
http://iamgoogleandiwantyourinfo.com/youreanidiot.js
http://pleasesayfuckyoutoyourprivacy-google.com/youvebeenraped.js

All of which are automatically included in each page you view with Chrome.

Re:5% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790365)

Because MBAs and other bottom-feeders of humanity have found ways to take advantage of technology's advances through vast and countless advertisement networks which slow or stall page loading. Money is why we can't have nice things, it's always the fucking money.

Re:5% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790403)

Slashdot 10 years ago: 92.9KB http://web.archive.org/web/20030526021234/http://slashdot.org/
Slashdot now: 262KB

There's part of the difference, in rendering. Sites are far more complex now, and often calibrate themselves to your browser with JS. All of that takes time. Sites get more complex as computers and browsers get more advanced.

The biggest thing is latency doesn't change. The speed of light across the planet isn't likely to change, and the only way around it is quantum computing (and even then, may only propagate at the speed of light)

Here's a pretty good illustration of latencies effects. http://staggerleedev.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/latencyperregion2.png

Re:5% (1)

stms (1132653) | about a year ago | (#43790553)

Because most places have the same internet they had 10 years ago.

Re:5% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790605)

My throughput is 80x higher than it was, but my latency is only 15 msec less.

Re:5% (4, Interesting)

HCase (533294) | about a year ago | (#43790573)

Try loading a page that hasn't changed for years.
I will offer as my suggestion, the Space Jam movie homepage:
http://www2.warnerbros.com/spacejam/movie/jam.htm [warnerbros.com]

Re:5% (1)

jandjmh (66714) | about a year ago | (#43790931)

Arggh. How did anyone ever think those graphics were a good idea. It seemed like the page loaded pretty fast, so when my eyes stopped watering I got some good dark glasses, and browsed around the site. Navigating was so flipping fast it was virtually instantaneous.

Re:5% (2)

JabberWokky (19442) | about a year ago | (#43790639)

CPUs are magnitudes faster today than they were 10 years ago. Why is it that pages still take seconds to load? Go back 10 years and they still took the same amount of time. Why?

The two major updates so far this week: Google Chrome, which now renders faster, and flickr, which has significantly more complex and larger graphics. As things get able to and display process more, more is asked of them. We aren't targeting 580px wide simple HTML, no CSS and 15 color gifs. Nor are we targeting a single platform and the simple display of information. Even if you're just displaying stuff, if you're doing it right, you're divorcing content from presentation and sending a handful of files for each page: each a solution to a problem that was at one time annoying. Or "solved" poorly with the likes of early Frontpage or Dreamweaver.

Re:5% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790719)

My C=64 booted in 2.3 seconds.

Re:5% (2)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43790863)

Ads. User tracking. Just look at the simplest page, it will probably have thousands of lines of javascript code, ping facebook and 15 other anti social networks and also load huge images and html5 video at the same time.

5% == meh (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790283)

Ancient rule of thumb: Anything performance improvement below 10% is not perceptible.

So... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43790285)

Is "'smarter behind-the-scenes resource scheduling,'" a codeword for 'not loading huge fucking flash objects from shitty overloaded ad servers'? Because that really helps with load times...

Flashblock (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43790407)

In that case, it wouldn't provide much of a benefit over what I already use: an extension that enforces a click-to-play policy on plug-ins. Such extensions go by names such as Flashblock.

Re:Flashblock (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790525)

Extension? Chrome and Firefox both have that capability native these days.

Firefox: Go to about:config and search for click_to. Turn it to true. (It's really neat and even tells you what type of content you'll load before you click.)
Chrome: Go to chrome://settings/content and select Click to play for plugins.

Re:So... (2)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43790827)

That's not chrome's fault. User error, as always, for browsing the web without adblock, flashblock and plugins on autoload.

Re:So... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43790995)

That's not chrome's fault. User error, as always, for browsing the web without adblock, flashblock and plugins on autoload.

..why do you think google got into browser game if not for shipping a browser that doesn't block their ads and tracking _by_default_.

OWA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790291)

Hope they actually managed to fix OWA file attachments with this version. I refuse to install silverlight as a work around.

Opera with text-only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790293)

For the majority of my browsing I'm still ticking to Opera with CSS, images, and scripting turned off by default. Pages are loaded as fast as the server can feed the main HTML. If I really really want to I can turn on CSS or images by pressing a single key, but for most websites like this one the text is all that I'm interested in so why bother loading the rest.

Re:Opera with text-only (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#43790423)

Why don't you browse in bash with links then?

Re:Opera with text-only (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790565)

Read the 3rd sentence Idiot. (That's Idiot with a capital I, cause anyone who takes the time to post such a moronic comment on slashdot deserves the capitalization)

Re:Opera with text-only (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about a year ago | (#43790595)

maybe he needs javascript, CSS layout and other things most web pages these days insist on, which links wont do?

Re:Opera with text-only (1)

KillDaBOB (206494) | about a year ago | (#43790695)

uh... do you mean "lynx"? i've never heard of a browser called "links" before. man, that takes me back to some good ol' vax/vms days.

Re:Opera with text-only (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790713)

links exists too, it's a text mode browser. The name is clever (or the opposite of clever, depending on your mood). w3m was the best browser of that type last I checked.

Re: Opera with text-only (4, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#43790905)

Links (elinks I think is the package name) is a console browser with some CSS layout support (unlike lynx when I replaced it).

I Tried It, But It Was Still Ridiculously Slow (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790383)

The hideously poor performance that I observed had nothing whatsoever to do with Chrome or the browser, the problem was that in order to paint a simple page, my browser was also sent to the following hosts: a.fsdn.com, b.scorecardresearch.com, ad.doubleclick.net (47 times), fls.doubleclick.net, ajax.googleapis.com, www.google-analytics.net, libs.coremetrics.com, edge.quantserv.com, js.bizographics.com, ad.yieldmanager.com, r.twimg.com, and several connections to facebook and twitter, which are really puzzling since I have no facebook or twitter account. After about 3 minutes, something in the world of TCP/IP finally closed a couple of the doubleclick connections and the browser painted the page!

Re:I Tried It, But It Was Still Ridiculously Slow (3, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about a year ago | (#43790583)

This is a browser problem because the browser should not wait for all of those sites to be contacted before painting the page

Re:I Tried It, But It Was Still Ridiculously Slow (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about a year ago | (#43791181)

Alternatively a problem with the scripts, caused either by the developer loading them in the head instead of after body close, or by the authors of the scripts for writing them so that they only work when placed in the head.

Scripts go after body close. If you don't like that, enjoy your high bounce rates.

A simple solution for your problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790849)

Firefox w/ AdBlock and NoScript.

Still claims rights to 100% of what you do in it.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790397)

"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

This is going to be interesting in a few decades when Google is sold off and we get to see what kind of data they have been keeping.

Re:Still claims rights to 100% of what you do in i (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790511)

duckduckgo

Not as good as google search, but hella-better than continuing to send data to those creeps.

Re:Still claims rights to 100% of what you do in i (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790515)

good god, man! get out of here with your so called "facts" on my slashdot! you must have something to hide if you are worried about such things. are you a terrorist??

WOW! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790411)

5% faster! thats unpossible! i'm 105% sure i don't give a fuck!

To paraphrase Churchill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790441)

Those who would give up privacy for a little faster page loads deserve neither.

Re:To paraphrase Churchill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790507)

That was Ben Franklin you cum-burping retard.

Re:To paraphrase Churchill (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790547)

Check your facts, and try being less rude. It was Churchill.

Yawn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790461)

Wake me when version 31.1 for workgroups is out.

is gmail faster in it? (1, Funny)

4wdloop (1031398) | about a year ago | (#43790537)

Yea google, you're getting bigger and slower...gmail got so dog slow I am considering switching to hotmail, 5% is gonna go unnoticed by an average Joe.

Re:is gmail faster in it? (5, Interesting)

Laxori666 (748529) | about a year ago | (#43790649)

5% actually makes a huge difference. "Latency matters. Amazon found every 100ms of latency cost them 1% in sales. Google found an extra .5 seconds in search page generation time dropped traffic by 20%." [link [highscalability.com]]. These statistics would not be true if the average Joe would not notice them. He notices, he just wouldn't phrase it as "this site was 100ms slower than usual so I didn't buy from it."

Re:is gmail faster in it? (2)

4wdloop (1031398) | about a year ago | (#43790817)

But wait...it's a client speed up optimization. All in all it would cause the same amount of traffic just reordered to start pages render sooner.

As for Joe Human, his reaction time is at about 20ms. Hence @5% improvement would be theoretically "noticeable" in a 2 seconds page load. But unnoticeable if Joe Human would have to observe it relative to 2 seconds total. Likely even with a stop watch Joe H. would be in "error area". And 100ms would be an improvement on a 20s load which would challenge patience of any Joe H.

From improvement description:
"The primary drivers are: preloading images sooner, more aggressive use of idle network time, dynamically changing resource priorities, deprioritization of preloaded resources, and reduced bandwidth contention among images."

From TFA:
"when you add up those saved seconds across all Chrome users, it totals to more than 510 years of people’s time saved every week."

Now that's convincing argument.

I admit that squeezing that 5% of already well optimized code is a great achievement (technically) that may be head-deep in the law of diminishing returns (practically). But G$$gle can afford it.

RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (4, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about a year ago | (#43790563)

Its memory usage that is such a great problem for me, not really the issue of CPU time. If chrome is constantly cuasing disk caching because of the enormous memory usage, that is going to cause massive speed degredation, which is far greater than any 5% decrease in CPU time by an algorithm. I wish Chrome had a feature for not storing uncompressed copies of image if they are off screen and would fix the massive memory holes. Really no reason a browser should use more than 5-10 MB of RAM per open tab.

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (2)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43790841)

Buy more ram. It's cheap. You'll be much happier, and not just with chrome.

On the other hand, what memory holes? I run chrome for weeks, no issues whatsoever.

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (4, Insightful)

Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798) | about a year ago | (#43791047)

Buy more ram. It's cheap. You'll be much happier, and not just with chrome.

Buying more RAM only makes sense if there is somewhere to put it.

Of three laptops we have, one is limited to 8 GB and the two ultraportables to 2 GB.

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#43791257)

And why is that? Because people see laptops as disposables. There is little pressure for an OEM to spec a motherboard with a few extra SO-DIMM sockets, when people aren't planning to upgrade their laptops most of the time, or are going to buy a new one when they do (which will come with the more RAM).

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43791393)

my laptop has 4Gb ram, I normally have my mailclient, my rss reader, my webbrowser and a commandline open. Even with shitloads of tabs open I have yet to see my laptop go above 1.6GB ram in actual use (running debian+kde)

unless you're compiling something big, or doing video-editing the amount of ram in even low-end laptops is complete and utter overkill these days

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43791001)

ram isn't much of an issue on a desktop.

I got "just" 8 gigs and pretty much never go over 75% usage for extended periods of time.. even eclipse just takes 766mbytes!

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#43791279)

Good for you. There are some people out there for whom 2 GB of email storage space is enough, or a 32 GB SSD is big enough. Or 32-bit processors are good enough.

Technology, progress in life, is driven by people for whom the status quo was not good enough. We have 64-bit processors because some people decided that 32-bit processors simply wouldn't do. This is the same reason we use light bulbs, instead of candles, to illuminate our homes, and why you don't spend most of your life being chased by something bigger and angrier and quite possibly hungrier than you are...because some of those people, who had been chased by Muthgar the Lion of Doom across the Savannah of Africa decided that it simply wasn't the life for them. Chasing after Muthgar, on the other hand, in what closely resembles a tank, and paying his kin back for the numerous ancestors they wandered off with, however, was. As it stands, Muthgar is on such shaky ground at the moment, that he and his kin need to be kept inside a patrolled in area, so that there will a Muthgar in the future for people to remember what one looked like. Such are human beings -> they hate being prey to anything, and they hate being uncomfortable, and they hate having their freedoms restricted.

Re:RAM usage is big issue, not CPU (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43791025)

Really no reason a browser should use more than 5-10 MB of RAM per open tab.

Hahahaha, good luck with that.

chrome benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790597)

I don't know how much faster it is because it broke the chrome web page benchmark.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page-benchmarker/channimfdomahekjcahlbpccbgaopjll?hl=en

I find this the best test for browsing performance. I have a set list of urls I test with.

Never use a benchmark tool ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790861)

.. developed by the developer of a browser.

It is very easy to fix a test when the person who wrote the item being tested is also the one writing the test.

Lets hope it's more stable than last version (1)

BigFire (13822) | about a year ago | (#43790811)

Build-in flash module crash so frequently it isn't funny.

Re:Lets hope it's more stable than last version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43791113)

Google it. If your flash setting somehow conflicts with stand-alone flash player, that happens.

This is great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790835)

Now I can visit various mirrors of the old goatse.cx page 5% faster! Not the new goatse.cx though because now it just sucks.

Speed is not an issue anymore ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790837)

Rendering the pages CORRECTLY is more important than running faster by a few milliseconds. And that is where Chrome fails miserably.

And 2000% memory usage... (0)

wakeboarder (2695839) | about a year ago | (#43790907)

And I don't want google tracking me.

Re:And 2000% memory usage... (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43791003)

Then you might want to use Chromium instead. Chromium is open source unlike Google Chrome, and doesn't include the same tracking system that Google adds to its proprietary product.

Re:And 2000% memory usage... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43791031)

I even use the built-in sign-in feature. Kind of cringes to think that my complete list of visited URLs is stored in their server. I'm insane.

Still missing a feature! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790963)

How about making Chrome work with RHEL 6 again?

Re:Still missing a feature! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43790981)

How about making RHEL 6 work with the rest of the world again?

If you want to use an OS built on obsolete components is your call, but don't expect everyone else to cater to your needs.

unscientific/unsubstantiated report (1)

thephydes (727739) | about a year ago | (#43791347)

Yes, it does appear to be snappier. But hey, what would I know? (please don't answer that)
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...