Google's Chrome

[DiscGo]

http://www.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/chrome.jpg

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHvkt5UkooUX1otx8ROBM0k-5VcQD92UHSHO0

[quote]Google takes aim at Microsoft with new Web browser
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE

[DiscGo]

I hear good things about this browser, but how knows. I am excited though.

[KapitanSparrow]

I hear good things about this browser, but how knows. I am excited though.

It looks like you're excited DiscGO :haha: You posted this thread twice, heh.

[greyhair biker]

...the guy must be related to me (liedtke) but I don't have a clue :ne_nau:

[DiscGo]

It looks like you're excited DiscGO :haha: You posted this thread twice, heh.

Prove it :)

[Deathcricket]

Microsoft brushed aside the threat in a statement Monday from Dean Hachamovitch, Internet Explorer's general manager.

"The browser landscape is highly competitive, but people will choose Internet Explorer 8 for the way it puts the services they want right at their fingertips ... and, more than any other browsing technology, puts them in control of their personal data online," Hachamovitch said.

:haha:
Where do 99% of all security leaks, backdoors, trojans, and spyware exist? Ok I guess if you don't get a call every single day from someone who has had their computer hacked by a vulnerability located in Internet Explorer, you might not find that as funny as do. Oh man, I gotta send this around the office, pure gold! "puts people in control of their personal data online, more than ANY other browser" What color is the sun in this guys world, I gotta know. Wow..
:2thumbs:

Edit: I know since they have the largest market they are the biggest target for hackers. Is a hacker going to try and hack 75% of the market or 10%, easy question. But LOL!

[DiscGo]

I'm totally with you deathcricket!

[JP]

Mozilla :haha:

[DiscGo]

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj294/DiscGo/26ff7f7e.jpg


The first person to surf Bogley on Chrome :)

http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html

[accadacca]

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj294/DiscGo/26ff7f7e.jpg


The first person to surf Bogley on Chrome :)

http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html
Can you attach a screen shot? I am not on the Gates bandwagon.

[Deathcricket]

I do see a bug right off the bat. When surfing through a VPN in full tunnelling mode, it doesn't seem to work at all. Yet Firefox and IE work fine. Other than that, I'm kinda digging it.

:2thumbs:

Edit: especially the history folder! It keeps nice little notes of every place you went and what time you went there. Schweet! Now I can keep tabs on my wife and where she finds her porn.

[jumar]

I'm a google geek, so looking forward to messing with it. :2thumbs:

[DiscGo]

I use LogMeIn rescue at work, and LogMeIn doesn't support Chrome yet, but so far I'm liking it.

For one thing, I drag a tab from one browser to another and have a live image as I drag them.

[LOAH]

Deathcricket, you poor soul! Stuck using Oracle?

Me too. :haha:

Hate it. :nod:

[Deathcricket]

Deathcricket, you poor soul! Stuck using Oracle?

Me too. :haha:

Hate it. :nod:

:roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

Dammit, if you weren't 10x the fisherman I was, I would kick your ass right now. But I just can't get mad at you ever. The angler gods would not be pleased.
:five:

[BruteForce]

We had it installed within 2 minutes of it being released. We put it through it's paces.

I like the way it imported all the Firefox settings, favorites, cookies and username/passwords.

I like the clean look / feel, but it still has some of the Firefox bugs. It would be real nice if it could render ActiveX pages, thereby completely killing off IE. :2thumbs:

[DiscGo]

I have really liked it so far, though I really like the Google Toolbar, and ironically Google Toolbar is not compatible with Chrome. Still I think there is promise.


However I can see a major con from a work standpoint. I try and check Bogley at work when I can, and Chrome instead of just having a single homepage can show you the top 6 websites you use (to choose between when creating a new tab). That would suck to have your boss come over and say make a new tab and suddenly have Bogley show up as my #1 site :).

(You can set Chrome to have a normal default homepage, but the capability is still there).

[skianddive]

Review: Google's Chrome needs more polish


By Peter Svensson

NEW YORK (AP) -- Google Inc.'s new Web browser, called Chrome, does much of what a browser needs to do these days: It presents a sleek appearance, groups pages into easy-to-manage "tabs" and offers several ways for people to control their Internet privacy settings.

Yet my initial tests reveal that this "beta," or preliminary release, falls short of Google's goals, and is outdone in an important measure by the latest version of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer.

Chrome is a challenge to Microsoft's browser, used by about three-quarters of Web surfers. But it could equally be called a challenge to Microsoft's Office software suite, because what Google really wants to do is to make the browser a stable and flexible platform that can do practically everything we want to do with a computer, from word processing and e-mail to photo editing.

To strengthen that effort, Chrome was designed to improve on the way other browsers handle JavaScript, one of the technologies used to make Web pages more interactive and more like desktop software applications. Google's online word processing and spreadsheet programs use this technology, but it's also very widely deployed on Web pages to do less sophisticated things, like drop-down menus.

At first blush, Google's focus on JavaScript makes sense. JavaScript can eat up computer processor power, and if poorly used by a Web site, can bring down the browser. One of the things Chrome promises is that if one browser tab crashes, it won't take down the whole program.

Chrome also has some cosmetic differences from Internet Explorer and Firefox, like putting the tabs at the very top of the window. That's a nice move, but it's the browser's performance that really matters to me. And this is where Chrome's attention to JavaScript might miss the point.

At work, I often have 40 or 50 tabs open in Firefox, grouped in different windows depending on which topic they pertain to. Frequently, Firefox would slow down all the other applications on my computer, then seize up completely.

At first I thought JavaScript was to blame, and blocked it from running. But that made many sites unusable, and it didn't help: The browser still froze.

It turns out the culprit is not JavaScript but another technology used to make Web pages more interactive: Adobe Systems Inc.'s Flash plug-in. It's the program-within-a-program that plays YouTube videos and those annoying "splash" pages that some sites employ to dazzle you with animations before letting you do anything useful on the site.

Flash is a tremendous resource hog in Firefox, eating up processor time to the point where there is nothing left for other programs. It does this even if you're not actively doing anything. Merely having a YouTube page open on your screen will suck power from your computer's central processing unit, or CPU. This is outrageous behavior for a browser. It's my CPU and I want it back.

Luckily, there's a small add-on program for Firefox that lets the user prevent Flash files from running automatically when a page loads, and it turns Firefox into a stable, efficient browser.

What does this mean on Chrome? Well, it has the same problem. It lets sites running Flash take over your computer's resources. It doesn't hog the CPU quite as bad as with Firefox, but in a way, it's more serious, because unlike with Firefox, there's no way to stop Flash from running. Chrome's controls are quite bare-bones, perhaps because it's still in "beta."

On the plus side, Chrome allows you to diagnose problems with runaway plug-ins easily, because it tells you exactly which pages are consuming which resources. Had I been able to do this with Firefox, it would have saved me from months of browser troubles.

So which one comes out smelling like roses? The beta of Internet Explorer 8, released just last week.

When playing a YouTube video, Firefox 3 took up 95 percent of the CPU time on a three-year old laptop running Windows XP.

Chrome came in at 60 percent -- still too much. Especially since Google owns YouTube! You'd think it could make its browser work well with that site in particular.

Internet Explorer barely broke a sweat, taking up just a few percent.

When I told each browser to load eight pages, some of which were heavy with Flash and graphics, Firefox took 17 seconds and ended with a continuous CPU load of 50 percent. That means it took up half of my available processing power, even if I wasn't looking at any of the pages.

Chrome loaded them the fastest, at 12 seconds, and ended with a CPU load of about 40 percent.

Internet Explorer 8 took 13 seconds to load, but ended with no CPU load at all.

So while Chrome's performance is a little better than that of Firefox, in practical terms, it is far less useful, because it lacks the broad array of third-party add-ons programs like Flashblock that make Firefox so customizable. With time, it might catch up, but in the meantime, I'd recommend giving the new Internet Explorer a spin.


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/default.aspx (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/default.aspx)

[Deathcricket]

At work, I often have 40 or 50 tabs open in Firefox, grouped in different windows depending on which topic they pertain to. Frequently, Firefox would slow down all the other applications on my computer, then seize up completely.

Chrome loaded them the fastest, at 12 seconds, and ended with a CPU load of about 40 percent.

Internet Explorer 8 took 13 seconds to load, but ended with no CPU load at all.

3 things. I don't know, nor have a have ever heard of anyone who has 40-50 tabs open on a "regular" basis. That is madness! Purely for test purposes to test the limits of software? Ok. But complaining that Firefox crashes when you have that many windows open is absurd IMO.

2nd, comparing IE version 8 with Chrome Beta? Of course it needs more polish. But the fact that it still goes faster than version 8 (ya using more cp though) is encouraging.

3rd, No mention of security? I think one of the main reasons people use other browsers is because they are sick of getting infected. My mac buddies always flaunt that over me and I have zero response to talk trash back. :)

Still a good review though beside that I think he was pretty good. Thanks for putting it up skianddive! I would like to have heard how it works on "poorly designed" websites too, but time will tell I think.

[accadacca]

This reviewer must work for Mr. Gates.

[skianddive]

3 things. I don't know, nor have a have ever heard of anyone who has 40-50 tabs open on a "regular" basis. That is madness! Purely for test purposes to test the limits of software? Ok. But complaining that Firefox crashes when you have that many windows open is absurd IMO.

I agree. I personally had more problems with multiple tabs in IE v.7 than with Firefox v.3, and I often have at least 10 open and sometimes double that. Seems like the author would be better served by using two (or three) monitors if he really needs to have that much information at his fingertips.

But he is right in noting that if a single tab in IE v.7 or FF v.3 crashes, the entire browser must be taken down - which appears to be fixed in both Chrome and IE v.8 although it's being touted as a "feature".



2nd, comparing IE version 8 with Chrome Beta? Of course it needs more polish. But the fact that it still goes faster than version 8 (ya using more cp though) is encouraging.

Note that IE v.8 is also in beta, so it is an apples-to-apples comparison to Chrome. Both will require more polish, enhancements, performance improvements, and corrections before they are released.

And I was impressed that both of these new versions were so fast because that means that performance must have been one of the premier requirements for both products. However, he does not mention memory usage either, so I'm hoping this has not been compromised.



3rd, No mention of security? I think one of the main reasons people use other browsers is because they are sick of getting infected. My mac buddies always flaunt that over me and I have zero response to talk trash back. :)

The AP article doesn't mention security, but the MS site does discuss some security features that have been added to IE v.8.

http://tinyurl.com/5khko8 (http://tinyurl.com/5khko8)



Still a good review though beside that I think he was pretty good. Thanks for putting it up skianddive! I would like to have heard how it works on "poorly designed" websites too, but time will tell I think.

Since I'll be using all three, I'll try to find some crappy sites and report back. But since I use RoboForm (http://www.roboform.com/) and a few other browser-dependent programs, Chrome and IE v.8 will not be my priority.

[DiscGo]

Have you guys tried IE8? It kept crashing when I had it.

[skianddive]

Have you guys tried IE8? It kept crashing when I had it.

IE v.8 is in its second beta - did you only try the first one?

With that said, however, it does have problems with certain sites. I tried IE v.8 with all of my popular and most useful sites, and it did quite well.

But it has a serious problem with Netflix, particularly when viewing my queue of 167 movies and 17 saved ones. In fact, it cannot even render the screen completely and I must often end the IE process manually. If it is one of many tabs, all of them are affected, so its new "feature" is not working as planned.

With FF v.3, my Netflix queue is displayed in about 7 seconds, and Chrome is a few seconds better. I suspect IE has the problem it does because of all the Java script on the Netflix page because we all know how much MS loves Java.

[Redpb]

So far I like it.
One problem for me is it fails on ftp sites, i.e. UVU class ftp sites.
It always tells me the page isn't available, but if I use Ff or IE it works just fine.

[DiscGo]

I had beta 1 for IE8 and it was worthless. I'll have to check out Beta 2