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 Chrome, Day 2

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the lookit-all-them-stories dept.

Google 1016

Seems that almost every story submitted to Slashdot last night in some way involved Google's Chrome that we started talking about yesterday. Dotan Cohen noted that according to Clicky Chrome has hit 3% browser share. Since Google has decided to release Chrome only for Windows, I now share for you 3 reviews written by others: the first comes from alexy2k, the second from mildsiete, and the third from oli4uk. They all seem to feature various opinions, charts, and screenshots demonstrating various exciting points.

cancel ×

1016 comments

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

Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (5, Informative)

xmas2003 (739875) | about 6 years ago | (#24858741)

I looked at the web logs from a general purpose, non-techy website (Watching Grass Grow) [watching-grass-grow.com] and Chrome accounted for 0.73% of the browser traffic yesterday ... ... and traffic didn't start until after the release at Noon. The User Agent String is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13" For comparison, IE was 53.8%, Firefox was 34.6%, Safari was 3.5% (non-Chrome) , Opera was 0.7%, and there was even 0.05% of traffic from an iPhone.

That's an impressive bump for day one (actually, half a day) and if you (unrealistically) extrapolated that rate, Chrome would have 100% of the browser market by year end! ;-)

I had to modify the Analog source code to account for the Chrome browser (gotta like open-source) but have have other popular programs (such as Google Analytics) been updated to identify this browser?

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (4, Insightful)

Mushdot (943219) | about 6 years ago | (#24858789)

Interesting to see whether it tails off in the next week or so though. I installed Chrome, had a quick test on a few websites then uninstalled it as I'm happy using Opera. I'll probably try it again a few months down the line when it has been improved/bugfixed etc. How many of that initial percentage will do the same as me I wonder?

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | about 6 years ago | (#24858831)

I'm using Chrome right now, and so far, no issues. Actually, I really like it. When plugins are developed for Chrome, I can see myself using this as my primary browser. I did notice that gmail runs faster in Chrome. Also, the comic is quite entertaining for a geek...

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (5, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 years ago | (#24858885)

Wow, you found the comic entertaining? I've got some buckets of paint that are going up on walls soon. Want to buy some tickets for the drying? Only $5 for the lawn tickets, $20 for the reserved seating.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | about 6 years ago | (#24858923)

Trojan Ad Ware.

Where's the "blocker?"

Oh? yeah...

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (4, Interesting)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | about 6 years ago | (#24858977)

It's a good start.
But in my 10 mins of usage, I have just realized how Firefox has spoiled my browsing habits!

Few points so far (remember - just 10 mins of use):
1. Cursor is going missing in Slashdot reply box if it is at the beginning of the line.
2. There are ads on ./!!
3. Great debugging tools for developers built-in.
4. Unlike Firefox, no option for smooth-scrolling (I find it mandatory for large pages - especially on ./)

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#24859089)

Gmail running faster must be the JavaScript. From test results it seems that is the strongest point of the browser: JavaScript performance. Plus some other interesting features such as each tab it's own process. But JavaScript performance is of course what they are after: then Google Docs will run much much better, making it more attractive for people to start using.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (5, Informative)

Creepy (93888) | about 6 years ago | (#24859287)

yeah - I just tested it with a javascript heavy app and it seems very snappy. The same app doesn't even run correctly on Firefox 3 (it does on IE and Firefox 2, and I believe we filed a FF3 bug).

I have not done extensive testing (heck, it won't be supported, so there is no reason to), but it seems a good effort so far.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (1)

Amouth (879122) | about 6 years ago | (#24859291)

i like their debuging tools and yes javascipt is faster on it.. but it had some issues.. we use a javascript to preload image on the page (for hover overs and the like) it looks at the document and graps all the image refrences and then loads them into an array - (makeing the browser download them into cache).. but for some reason their javascript engine does not like that script at all.. it works but gives alot of resource errors when dealing with images that have relitive paths.. not sure why.. every other browser runs it fine (IE/Opera/FF/saf)

if it starts getting large i will bother to try and debug it for chrome.. although i doubt the bug is in the script it's self, and rather how it is compileing it to run. cause all the errors i am getting are where it sees the url to the image but the url doesn't have the file extention on it

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (4, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | about 6 years ago | (#24859313)

I got no issues with it as well, however, I will stay with Firefox for a few reasons:

(1) Adblock.
(2) NoScript.
(3) Automatically clear private information on close.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (3, Insightful)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | about 6 years ago | (#24858949)

What does this part mean?

(KHTML, like Gecko)

Chrome doesn't use KHTML or Gecko, it uses WebKit (which is admittedly based on KHTML). But why are KHTML and Gecko mentioned in the user agent?

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (5, Informative)

42forty-two42 (532340) | about 6 years ago | (#24859029)

Because some foolish web developers disable functionality if they don't see what they expect in the user-agent. As a result, every web browser in existence lies in their user agent string. IE claims to be "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0b; Windows NT 6.0)", for example

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24859063)

That's basically the same UA string as Safari. IE pretends to be Mozilla, Safari pretends to be Gecko and KHTML, Chrome pretends to be Safari.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859195)

Sonds like a circle jerk [yahoo.com] to me.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (5, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | about 6 years ago | (#24859099)

It all started when idiotic websites started testing for 'Mozilla' in the User-agent string to make their sites break when you weren't using Netscape. So to keep compatibility, Microsoft decided to put 'Mozilla (compatible; blah blah)' in their User-agent string. The mess used by Chrome is the apex of User-agent stupidity, so far. All those strings are in there so that badly configured webservers won't serve the wrong content. The next browser that replaces Chrome will no doubt include this string and add even more words.

I wonder if Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Opera, Apple and others could get together to declare a User-agent flag day when, on the first of January 2009, all User-agent strings would remove the historic cruft and just tell you the browser and version. Sadly this has no chance of happening.

Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome (1)

MouseR (3264) | about 6 years ago | (#24859271)

WebKit is built on KHTML [upfold.org.uk] .

Firefox Fanboys Are Shitting Themselves (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859155)

It is amazing to see just how stunned hardcore Firefox fans are in their reaction to Chrome.

They are desperately posting in every forum on the Net trying to stop people from dumping Firefox. So far the EULA BS is the only thing they've managed to come up with other than a whole lot of blabbering and crying.

With the huge strides IE has made with their latest version with the Tabs in protected threads and the privacy browsing, suddenly FF is looking like an outdated also ran in the browser market.

PS. F Opera - no one cares about all three of you who run that turd of a browser

just curiousity (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24858743)

How much is Taco and his crew being paid to astroturf Google's new browser?

Re:just curiousity (3, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | about 6 years ago | (#24858927)

Google Chrome: Day 2, article number four. :)

Re:just curiousity (2, Insightful)

colmore (56499) | about 6 years ago | (#24859033)

Come on, web browsers are among the biggest pieces of software going, and Google is a major player. This is big news. There've been three browsers (and Opera!) for a long time now.

This is news.

A couple of annoying things I've found so far (5, Informative)

rallymatte (707679) | about 6 years ago | (#24858751)

You can't seem to change the default new page. For example, open up a new tab and you'll see recently closed tabs and most visited pages. If a collegue wants to use a browser on your computer you might not want him to see a screenshot on your most viewed pages.
The other thing that I personally find a bit annoying is that if you don't put http:/// [http] in front of or / after a url that is within one of your search domains, it automatically assumes that you want to search the web for that, lets say there's a server on your network that you haven't visited before called server1.domain.com and you have domain.com among your search domains, it will go off to google.com and search for server1 if you only type in server1 in the address bar. But then again, maybe that's just me.

-
Posted with Google Chrome

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (2, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | about 6 years ago | (#24858873)

Oh, wow! So that's where they hid "reopen closed tabs" at! Thank you so much!

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | about 6 years ago | (#24859285)

You can also press CTRL-Shift-T to reopen the last closed tab, just like Firefox.

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (2, Informative)

boteeka (970303) | about 6 years ago | (#24858931)

I don't know about the domain issue, but you definitely can change the new page.

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (1)

rallymatte (707679) | about 6 years ago | (#24859007)

Well, I've found where you can change the home page, but that doesn't seem to apply to a new tab or a new window.

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (0, Redundant)

RandoX (828285) | about 6 years ago | (#24858959)

Want to see something _really_ scary? Open a new tab and click "Show full history".

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (3, Insightful)

RulerOf (975607) | about 6 years ago | (#24859109)

No, it's not just you. Crossing DNS and HTTP is historically [wikipedia.org] a very, very bad idea. Unfortunately though, it does improve ease of use for Joe "PEBKAC" Sixpack. Therefore, it'll probably end up being the more popularly desired behavior...

That said though, when I'm creating static links for use in a shortcut, document, nslookup or whatnot, I tend to use FQDN's myself. It's pretty much only in the browser that I cheat like that.

I speculate, however, that this conflict of interests is simply a result of the underlying technologies (dns/http) simply being used today for purposes beyond the scope of their original design.

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859149)

Spanner->Options->Basics->Homepage, select "Open this page", and enter the URL you want.

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 6 years ago | (#24859273)

It's not just you. I also find this "intelligence" in browsers annoying as hell. In Firefox, there's a search field right next to the address bar - don't they think I'd use that if I wanted to do a search?

I'm sure a large part of the /. audience uses hostnames only. That's why we have domains in the DNS system, don't we? So I can put my home machine in there, too, and it knows that by "mail" I mean mail.lemuria.org and not mail.google.com
And I most certainly don't want it to Google for "mail" - thank you, but I don't think you'll find my mail somewhere in the Google cache.

Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far (2, Interesting)

Deag (250823) | about 6 years ago | (#24859305)

And don't expect it to change. I find with google that once they release things. New features are not quick in forthcoming and giving users a multitude of options is not their style.

It is pretty much take it or leave it. This is very evident with google talk, I liked the feel of it but eventually I just couldn't change one or two things that bugged me so I am not so fond of it now.

That said I welcome a new browser to it all, the more the merrier, we don't want to slip back into the days of IE 6 being all that web developers targeted.

NetApplications shows 1% share (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 years ago | (#24858753)

According to NetApplications, Chrome has around 1% usage share [hitslink.com] . That's pretty good for a browser still only in beta.

Re:NetApplications shows 1% share (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859071)

Hell, gmail is still in beta. If that's any indicator, the beta period for Chrome will be a couple of years...

Chrome Eval (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 6 years ago | (#24858759)

I tried it out on my XP box yesterday and I was very impressed with it, especially its speed, but a quick look through the options revealed that DNS prefetching is enabled by default.

The show-stopper is(as of now) no NoScript/AdBlock! I've become spoiled with ad-free pages and seeing that first obnoxious flash ad was enough to convince me to keep FF as my browser of choice -- at least until a few plug-ins are made for Chrome.

Re:Chrome Eval (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24858863)

Google's primary source of revenue is advertising, why the hell would they shoot themselves in the foot by including ad and flashblock with their browser? Google's an advertising company that happens to provide a really good search engine. Heck, they're paying good money for sites like Slashdot, 4chan and independent blogs to crow about how a fucking web browser is the third coming of Christ (after Barack Obama)

Re:Chrome Eval (1)

colmore (56499) | about 6 years ago | (#24859077)

I don't know. If this thing is supposed to be the monster app platform that it's touted as being, I don't see how they'd stop the development of a new AdBlocker without crippling their browser.

But you just seem like the cynical type of person who clenches his face every time someone is happy about something.

Re:Chrome Eval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859267)

Son, you need priorities if you're happy about a new web browser. It's a great big world with lots of girls to kiss and you derive joy from the release of a web browser produced by a large corporation? How much did they pay you for your soul?

Re:Chrome Eval (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 6 years ago | (#24859081)

I don't have any problems with seeing Google's ads for, say, cheap auto insurance [google.com] while running NoScript and AdBlock!

But, no more courtesy clicks for Slashdot's ads until they get idle off the front page :)

Re:Chrome Eval (3, Informative)

heptapod (243146) | about 6 years ago | (#24859185)

http://tech.slashdot.org/help [slashdot.org]

Click "Sections"

Find "Idle" and tick the radio tab under the 'no' sign.

???

No more idle.slashdot.org on the front page!!!

Re:Chrome Eval (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#24858975)

Wow, whoa, holy fuck batman... am I the ONLY person in the world to have thought about it before even downloading Chrome? meh, no adblock, fuckit, I'm not even gonna try it. Maybe when they support Linux there will be an adblock? If not, no problem because I have Firefox.

Some folk act like Firefox is competing with Opera, IE, and others... I don't see it that way. Firefox as won, the others just don't yet realize it. The features in FF are so good IMO that I don't even want to 'try' Chrome to see what it is like. I'll wait for windows fanbois to review it.

Yes, I realize that I sound like a FF fanboi, but this is not so. I just know a good tool when I use it. FF is not perfect, but I don't have the time to spend trying browsers looking for something that can compete with it.

That said, I hope Google does well with Chrome. I'll wait for reviws. It doesn't seem like they wre aiming to get my business yet anyway.

Re:Chrome Eval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859131)

am I the ONLY person in the world to have thought about it before even downloading Chrome? meh, no adblock, fuckit, I'm not even gonna try it.

Couldn't agree more. And I wonder what will happen when the great unwashed masses discover that they can easily block web ads -- which is why I promote Firefox with AdBlock and NoScript at every opportunity, to hasten the arrival of that day. Bwahahaha....

Re:Chrome Eval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859059)

The show-stopper is(as of now) no NoScript/AdBlock! I've become spoiled with ad-free pages and seeing that first obnoxious flash ad was enough to convince me to keep FF as my browser of choice -- at least until a few plug-ins are made for Chrome.

I wonder if the Google fork of Chrome will ever get adblock... I mean that's like building a business (Google's advertising) and then telling everybody on the street how to bypass your security (ablock).

Re:Chrome Eval (2, Informative)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | about 6 years ago | (#24859093)

http://www.admuncher.com/ [admuncher.com] . Works with every browser, including Chrome.

Re:Chrome Eval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859147)

I was just about to post here about the lack of Adblocker - I can't handle webpages with them anymore, so until I hear that they've got an add-on, I'm going to keep using Firefox.

I'll stick with Firefox (5, Insightful)

Massacrifice (249974) | about 6 years ago | (#24858813)

Really, I still don't see why I'd have to switch from FF3 to this new browser, free or not. I mean, once you get rid of IE's security hole and MS lock-in web technology, a browser's a browser, right?

I understand that Google want to have their own, but the established base of Firefox, with its plugins and extensions beats all for now, from a desktop user perspective.

I'll let the hype pass before I have a look.

Re:I'll stick with Firefox (5, Insightful)

Tribbin (565963) | about 6 years ago | (#24859023)

1. The memory tool that displays per-tab mem usage.
2. Sensible memory management.
3. Fast?
4. Sandboxed tabs.

Don't forget the extensions! (1)

Bragador (1036480) | about 6 years ago | (#24859303)

Also, we already have tons of extensions for firefox. I wouldn't imagine myself surfin the web without "customizegoogle" since I hate ads in gmail and in my google searches. :(

Chrome is spyware! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24858835)

Install it and 'Google Update' is silently installed along with it with no apparent way of turning it off besides regedit/msconfig. So much for "Don't be Evil".

Re:Chrome is spyware! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859025)

They dropped that whole 'Dont be Evil' thing long ago. They're just as bad as most other large companies, worse in a lot of ways.

They have no respect for people's privacy. They act nice and try to look good but when theres a profit to be made they'll happily screw everyone for another big company or government.

Re:Chrome is spyware! (5, Informative)

stickytar (96286) | about 6 years ago | (#24859265)

Goto "Under the Hood" in options and uncheck the anonymous statistics submission. Alternatively you can go to your Services and set the Google Updater Service to Disabled. Easy enough.

Google spying on you (5, Interesting)

edelholz (1098395) | about 6 years ago | (#24858839)

Apparently, every installation of Chrome gets an unique id [lawblog.de] (sorry, German only) and, once you've signed into your Google account ONCE, the unique id gets connected with your account and you'll always be traceable back to your Google account, even if you're not logged in.

That's a showstopper. But I'm hoping for a spy-free version to be out soon, the beauty of open source!

Re:Google spying on you (4, Funny)

flynns (639641) | about 6 years ago | (#24858987)

So, uh, what happens if someone else logs into their google account, then?

Re:Google spying on you (5, Funny)

Sobrique (543255) | about 6 years ago | (#24859227)

Well, I guess this'll make getting a job at Google interesting...

User Agent String (1)

neoform (551705) | about 6 years ago | (#24858851)

Google *really* needs to change their user agent string.

Right now it says the words "Safari" in it. That's very annoying for me to be able to identify a given browser on my websites.

Re:User Agent String (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | about 6 years ago | (#24858905)

Chrome uses the Webkit rendering engine, which is the same one used in Safari. I'm sure Chrome uses this user agent to instruct web sites as to which renderer to support, if applicable. The browser's been out for less than 24 hours so I doubt we'll see this user agent change any time soon.

Re:User Agent String (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24858945)

If you're that stupid, you're probably also looking at the word "Mozilla" and wondering why Netscape has like 99% of your user share when it died years ago.

Fix your browser detect: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

28 hours old, already double that of Opera. (1)

RandoX (828285) | about 6 years ago | (#24858855)

Opera is currently sitting at 1.42%.

By the way, any way to Adblock in Chrome? Didn't realize /. had so many ads.

Re:28 hours old, already double that of Opera. (2, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | about 6 years ago | (#24858911)

No AdBlock is available yet, I'm afraid. Other people are equally surprised. :)

local anecdote (5, Interesting)

pohl (872) | about 6 years ago | (#24858867)

In my office, there are several windows developers who were excited to try Chrome yesterday - one enthusiastically declaring that he was going to uninstall his other browser as soon as he got home. What struck me about this is that these are people who would never, in a million years, lift a finger to try Safari/Windows - yet here they are drooling over how snappy a WebKit-based browser is. The prospect of increased WebKit adoption makes me happy.

Re:local anecdote (4, Insightful)

Lendrick (314723) | about 6 years ago | (#24859057)

For me, it's not about WebKit at all. Chrome has two features I've wanted for ages: One, separate tabs are separate processes, which means that alert windows and that kind of crap are all tab-modal instead of application-modal. That way one little alert window can't tie up five tabs. The other thing is the JavaScript execution speed, which is nice.

That said, I'm not 100% sold on it. I like Firefox, and there are big JavaScript improvements coming down the pipe in the near future. Hopefully the tab feature will be picked up by Firefox in the near future as well, but we'll see... it may require a major rewrite.

Re:local anecdote (5, Interesting)

Zoidbergo (751725) | about 6 years ago | (#24859141)

I would characterize Chrome as "Safari for Windows done right."

There were massive mistakes Apple made (out of arrogance or incompetence, I'm not sure), when releasing Safari for Windows:

- Apple style Font rendering. Having to switch your eyes between Safari's anti-aliasing and ClearType on a regular basis starts to hurt your eyes, one seems blurry in comparison to the other.
- Safari didn't follow many of the standard windows app behaviors, another snafu. You can't stuff OS X app behaviors down the throats of Windows users, and vice versa.
- It also had an incredibly slow startup time. (Although it would render extremely fast)

Contrast this to Chrome, which renders text using ClearType and windows font rendering, behaves like a windows app, starts up really fast.

It's not even like I'm bashing Apple for a bad port. iTunes for windows was ported really well, it follows (for the most part, except menus) the windows UI conventions and font rendering, so it feels more like a Windows app.

(By the way, I'm primarily a Mac user and use Safari regularly on the Mac)

Re:local anecdote (2, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 6 years ago | (#24859169)

What struck me about this is that these are people who would never, in a million years, lift a finger to try Safari/Windows - yet here they are drooling over how snappy a WebKit-based browser is.

Because safari on windows is buggy as hell. Apple doesn't care about the windows implementation of Safari nearly as much as it cares about its itunes implementation, and itunes itself runs badly on windows.

I'm not saying that this reflects poorly on apple or anything, of course their software's going to be better on a mac than on windows, but blaming them for not using apple's software seems a little overboard.

Re:local anecdote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859175)

What struck me about this is that these are people who would never, in a million years, lift a finger to try Safari/Windows - yet here they are drooling over how snappy a WebKit-based browser is.

Maybe it's got something to do with the UI? Apple's software looks like shit on Windows, whereas Chrome matches the default theme in both XP and Vista.

Yuck (5, Insightful)

Bazman (4849) | about 6 years ago | (#24858871)

I'll start using Chrome the instant they have a plugin that blocks annoying flashing multi-colour favicons.

[for those who haven't read the links, just go to the second so-called 'review' link, which is really a review of reviews...]

Re:Yuck (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 6 years ago | (#24858985)

That one's a feature - it's warning you of utterly useless sites.

Re:Yuck (1)

Bazman (4849) | about 6 years ago | (#24859101)

Too true. It's supposed to be a review of Google Chrome and when you get near the end it says "I have yet to download Google's Chrome browser.".

Animated Favicons == Today's BLINK tag.

Brillant.

Many exciting bells and whistles (0)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 6 years ago | (#24858895)

Another browser? Again wasting time finding all the options to turn off all the new "exciting" "bells and whistles"??

I'd say rather "NO." FireFox 3 is already dumb down enough and mimics IE in many aspects. Third "user-friendly" browser, which brings about ZERO value to browsing, is bit too much for me to swallow.

Re:Many exciting bells and whistles (1, Insightful)

bogie (31020) | about 6 years ago | (#24858989)

Let me guess? Opera user right?

Seriously take 5 minutes to read about what they did under the hood. It's interesting and possible very helpful for many web users who want a very fast and safe browser. For me it is probably a bit too limiting compared to Firefox but Google Chrome still has some merit no matter how you measure value.

Re:Many exciting bells and whistles (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 6 years ago | (#24859257)

i don't want another browser to learn (and relearn after updates). i already have to deal with 2 (IE for sites that don't play nice, and FF as my preferred). i'd rather that google do more to integrate with FF. Or for FF to do more in the way of integrating all the google stuff i use (or better yet, replace them).

i find myself conflicted with open source ideals. i want free (in both senses), but i don't want redundant choices (flavors of the same thing) or learning curve (bookmarks vs. favorites, search vs. finder). i want to go to a machine and know how to use it because it's just like my machine at home/work. Same OS, same browser, same office apps, same selection in hard/software.

gr (1)

legoman666 (1098377) | about 6 years ago | (#24858907)

Just downloaded and installed it. First things first: Need AdBlock Plus. I will never switch away from Firefox 3 unless the alternative has an ad blocker.

Also, the scroll wheel function doesn't appear to function properly. When scrolling down, it moves a page length at a time. Scrolling up doesn't work at all.

Other than that, appears to be good so far...

Re:gr (1)

Vexor (947598) | about 6 years ago | (#24858951)

I just downloaded and am using the browser now. No problems at all with the scrolling. It feels a bit foreign. A few things are in nontraditional places, namely the bookmarks. So far it's pretty fast.

Re:gr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859263)

I will never switch away from Firefox 3 unless the alternative has an ad blocker.

You can run an ad blocking proxy. There are some small light ones that are easy to use. I'd recommend what I run, but it's hasn't been supported in many years.

What a completely pointless review (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | about 6 years ago | (#24858921)

What exactly is the need to review a program which you can download and try free of charge? Only if there were some special insight the reviewer could provide that you wouldn't notice with a casual test drive: for example, some notes about security. But that is sadly not the case here.

Indeed, the middle 'reviewer' hasn't even tried running the browser!

I have yet to download Google's Chrome browser. As I said in my previous post, I'll adopt a wait and see stand on this after my experience with Firefox 3. I even wrote that I may try the product a month after its launch to make sure some of the bugs have been fixed. But after reading mostly favorable reviews, something tell me that I will abandon that stand sooner than planned. How about you, have you downloaded the Google Chrome web browser?

Re:What a completely pointless review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859017)

What exactly is the need to review a program which you can download and try free of charge?

I don't use Windows.

Re:What a completely pointless review (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | about 6 years ago | (#24859137)

I don't use Windows.

In which case a review of a Windows-only program is surely not that interesting to you?

Can't beat slashdot for DDoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24858929)

According to alexy2k, Error establishing a database connection

Things I like, Things I don't (4, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | about 6 years ago | (#24858933)

The inspect element tool is awesome, lets you see the tree and go to any element you can right click on.

Killable tabs, I open tons of new tabs/windows in any browser I use and I hate it when one crashes and takes out a dozen pages I had open earlier to read later and then have to grep and guess through my history. This makes my day

When you search, it puts little marks on the scroll bar where results are. That's neat.

The tweaked tab system is great. Create new windows from tabs, drag tabs between windows, consolidate windows into tabs.

On the other hand

I really miss scroll-click and smooth scrolling. But it isn't the end of the world.

While I like having tabs on top, having the File/options/etc WIMP standards under that little button to the right of the address bar is kinda weird.

It's beta. It's very beta. Somewhere above "everybody else's beta" and but slightly below the usual "Google beta" quality.

I turned the awesome bar off.

But I still want it to do math for me.

I was impressed, but not switching (3, Interesting)

halivar (535827) | about 6 years ago | (#24858941)

The UI is intuitive, minimal, and eye-pleasing. It rendered almost all of my favorite web-sites perfectly (including some with CSS that previously only rendered in Firefox).

Not switching, though. AdBlock Plus is a must-have.

Re:I was impressed, but not switching (1)

ExternalDingus (951990) | about 6 years ago | (#24859181)

I was impressed but not switching as well. I use Opera and there are some features it has I just don't want to live without. If they could incoperate those I'd be on Google Chrome. The feautres I like most from Opera.. 1. "copy to note" feature. Allows you to right click and copy highlighted text to notes within the browser and they are orgnaized pretty well. It isn't perfect but I use it all the time. 2. "Save sessions" allows you to quickly save all the bookmarks open and name that session. 3. When opening, after closed, allows you to open to the session where you left off. 4. I also didn't like the look of it. Too monochromatic. Kind of disorienting.

Reviews suck (5, Informative)

Phylarr (981216) | about 6 years ago | (#24858963)

One reviewer hadn't even installed the browser yet. Seriously.

I installed Google's browser. It sucked. Didn't ask where I wanted to install it. No adblocker (and probably never will be). Very limited configuration options. Couldn't handle my font colors. Set GoogleUpdate.exe to run every time my computer starts. Took me to a "why are you uninstalling it" web form when I went to uninstall it, and the web form didn't work. Ass sucking from start to finish. Classic Google.

I want cookies turned off with an exceptions list (1)

Fastfwd (44389) | about 6 years ago | (#24858973)

This is why I'm staying with firefox for now. But faster page load and isolated threads for JAVA/javascript content really would be nice to have.

No Adblock? No Chrome for me. (0, Redundant)

Sparky9292 (320114) | about 6 years ago | (#24858993)

When Adblock is released for chrome, I will use it. It's funny how a 3rd party extension has become the killer app for browsing.

do not pass go. do not collect $200 (4, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 6 years ago | (#24858995)

Does it matter how good or bad it is, when you type in:

about:plugins

and the first thing you see is:

ActiveX Plug-in
File name: activex-shim
ActiveX Plug-in provides a shim to support ActiveX controls

Fix the Search Engine First (-1, Redundant)

harl (84412) | about 6 years ago | (#24858999)

*yawn* Another browser. What special feature do they have that we can't live without? Or to say that another way. Why should I bother looking at it?

These people can't even get a search engine right. They have no exact search functionality. Let me repeat that. They have no exact search functionality.

They peaked 2 years ago. In another 7 or so they'll be viewed just as microsoft is.

How do they do it? (2, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#24859003)

What makes me wonder is how Google manages to put out a browser, that's seemingly so complete. It's not an easy job: Firefox has been in development for about a decade now, after the open-sourcing of Netscape.

Did they use large chunks of other open-source browsers? If so, which ones? And considering page rendering speed, it is highly optimised. Or lots of features other browsers have are missing.

And how do they manage to get JavaScript work so lightning fast? Looking at the graphs, FF is two, three times as fast as IE, but both are nothing compared to Chrome. Did they write it from scratch, or highly optimised an existing JavaScript implementation? Both options sound pretty impressive to me. It can't be easy to get so quick JavaScript execution - why else can't FF and IE not get anything near this speed.

I can't test the browser myself unfortunately; my desktops run Linux and this laptop is OS/X. It sounds like a pretty impressive job what they did.

Anyone has any ACID/2/3 test results in Chrome? That would be really interesting.

Re:How do they do it? (5, Informative)

pohl (872) | about 6 years ago | (#24859117)

Did they use large chunks of other open-source browsers? If so, which ones?

Yes, they chose the WebKit [webkit.org] rendering engine, which is the same one you find in browsers like Konqueror, Safari, and Google's own Android platform.

Re:How do they do it? (1)

boteeka (970303) | about 6 years ago | (#24859199)

They used WebKit as a browser engine (also used by Safari, Galeon and Konqueror). They created a new JavaScript engine from scratch, called V8. It has lots of optimizations from which the most important is that it compiles once to machine code and doesn't use introspection after compile, and the second one is that although JavaScript isn't a class based OO language, Chrome classifies it in the background this way accounting for a great deal of performance boost. But I'm not an expert on this,you'd better look for yourself.

Re:How do they do it? (1)

Zerth (26112) | about 6 years ago | (#24859249)

Two things make jscript faster

1: new v8 jscript engine is tweaked for complex interactive non-presentational script actions. This is kind of cheating, since other jscript engines just aren't tweaked, they could probably get some performance gains here if anyone had cared before.

2: it compiles the jscript instead of using an interpreter, so you've got the same order of magnitude gains between any interpreted vs compiled system.

Re:How do they do it? (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 6 years ago | (#24859293)

They started with Webkit, created by Apple for Safari which was forked from KHTML a number of years ago now. So they started with the same basic rendering engine that powers Safari and extended from there. And it should be Acid compliant as Safari/Webkit was the first to reach ACID 3 compliance.

I use Safari on most days, FF if I'm forced to be on a windows box. No OSX support yet so I won't be using it. But again, Chrome is a browser designed to make web-apps better so they can put more of their ads in front of your eyeballs. Google has shifted from a search-engine to the new double click. If the core engine is that much better, look to see said features in Safari 4, only minus the phone homes and the ability to use Safari AdBlock.

Chrome's source (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859019)

I will shamelessly copy&paste my comment from the other Chrome news today:

I suggest you use the OpenSource version of Chrome , which is BSD licensed and has no EULA you need to agree to.

Builds:
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/

Info:
http://www.chromium.org

It's time to start hacking away at this ;-)

Great, just when we'd almost standardised.... (-1, Troll)

Tomsk70 (984457) | about 6 years ago | (#24859053)

...first FF, then Opera, now Chrome - hasn't anyone been paying attention in the last 10 years?

Are any of these browsers going to be taken up by corporations? No.

Is this all happening because some folks can't quite accept that MS won this war 10 years ago? Yes. Work with what people are using; the days of a brand-new alternative are faaar in the past.

Don't believe me? Fine, I'll just go and use one of the thousands of Open Office apps running right now arcoss the city...oh...er...I can't find one. How can that be?

Noticably the fastest browser. (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | about 6 years ago | (#24859097)

I'm using Chrome right now and I find it to be easily the fastest browser I've ever used. Slashdot's Javascript is slow on my machine but that compiler Chrome has seems to make even this plodding page load up almost instantly.

Suddenly, the thought of Google challenging MS-Office with JavaScript makes a great deal of sense.

I'm using it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24859127)

Well, I'm using it now to test it out. So far, Slashdot works.

That's pretty disappointing, but I guess I'll still give it another chance.

blinking favicon? (3, Informative)

ftobin (48814) | about 6 years ago | (#24859191)

Is it just me, or does the second review at http://www.monacome.com/2008/08/download-google-chrome-browser-review.html [monacome.com] have a ridiculously annoying animated favicon? I'm searching Google now for a way to disable this distracting device. I am definitely not going to read the article with such an annoyance about.

Not for me... (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | about 6 years ago | (#24859197)

I thought it might be nice to check it out, but I wasn't expecting very much from a beta browser. Unfortunately, after several reboots/reinstalls, I have yet to get it working. After two Application Errors on startup, I get a sad folder that says:
"Aw, Snap! Something went wrong while displaying this webpage. To continue, press Reload or go to another page."

Thanks for the effort, but let me know when they release a browser that actually will install. I think I'll stick with Firefox 3, thank you very much.

excellent (1)

joss (1346) | about 6 years ago | (#24859247)

I started using it today, it's excellent.. good background info at http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ [google.com] I use triple monitors and ability to drag a tab out is something I have wanted a long time. Also, using separate processes for different tabs is so obviously the correct approach, if FF codebase wasnt such a pig to work with someone would have made this change already.

Unclear privacy (2, Interesting)

AtomicJake (795218) | about 6 years ago | (#24859255)

The Google EULA [google.com] that I clicked through was the Google services EULA [google.com] (at least I think so) -- and as such not really acceptable.

Apparently Google published some clarifications [google.com] , but still there are open questions:

  • why is there a unique number with each installation and when is it send to Google? Can I disable sending it to Google?
  • I can opt out from many services that use a constant feedback to Google (such as Google Suggest; Malware sites; etc.), but is it then guaranteed that Chrome does no longer send details to Google?
  • is there an option "do not send anything to Google" that is not equal to the incognito mode?

So, in summary: It's a good browser to use Google applications; but for the moment not apt to access anything outside the Google universum.

DO NOT READ 3rd link (5, Informative)

FiloEleven (602040) | about 6 years ago | (#24859261)

It's not malicious or anything, it's just very, very poor writing and will make you angry.

Is there anything it can't do? (1)

David Gerard (12369) | about 6 years ago | (#24859281)

Google's new browser will give you their web and email services, photo processing, mapping, office applications that will run in said browser and will make you a cup of tea [today.com] . This is all paid for by personally-directed text ads in your tea leaves, based on analysing a DNA sample taken when you sip the tea and sending your genetic code back to Google for future targeting.

Google knows marketing (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 6 years ago | (#24859289)

Google's marketing on this has been absolutely great.

First they got my attention and made me aware that they're working on something. This worked because they're Google and I'm already paying attention to them because of their prominence and track record.

Then they provided me with an engaging explanation for the rationale behind developing yet another web browser. I didn't care at first, because I'm pretty sold on Mozilla. But I was curious to know why Google felt like a new browser was worth the effort to develop, so I read the comic, and the more I read about what they're doing with Chrome, the more I saw the good in the project.

For the moment, I'm still using Mozilla for my primary browser, and until Chrome becomes a little more feature-complete I'll continue to do so. Once Chrome implements support for Browser extensions similar to what Mozilla has, and a few of the essential Moz add-ons have been ported, I'm pretty much sold. At the moment, Mozilla's configurability and customizations are what wins with me. But for as immature as Chrome is, it's already very impressive, and I understand (and like) where Google's going with it.

Conflict of interest (1)

Arc the Daft (1340487) | about 6 years ago | (#24859301)

Did google get tired of all the noscript/adblock users not allowing googleanalytics.com or any other ad/tracking site?

Will google ever actively support noscript/adblock for *their* browser?

Personally, I like the interface and it has alot going for it. Too bad I can't use it the way I want to, with whitelist-only scripts and no ads. Not holding my breath for that functionality, either.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?