Google Chrome

[bascule]

So, Google's making a web browser. They took the Webkit rendering engine (often touted as the fastest around, and by far the simplest given its standards support) and built a multiprocess browser, such that every tab is contained within its own process. And they wrote their own JavaScript virtual machine (called J8) to boot.

 

Sounds pretty spiffy...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Half of the people listed in the cartoon were originally Mozilla folks. With their track record for browser innovation, I look forward to seeing the actual product -- it certainly has promise.

[ecoli]

Is the beta being released today?

 

I'm sure Mozilla is not too happy about it. It'll probably cut more into Firefox users than IE users.

[Skye]

There's also this:

 

Mozilla and Google have had a long and very fruitful relationship. Google is the default search engine on the Mozilla Firefox browser, and the company pays Mozilla large sums for the privilege: $56 million of the $66 million that Mozilla Corp. made in 2006.

That financial arrangement expires in 2011, and I don't see any reason for Google to extend it beyond that point, assuming Chrome isn't a total flop.

From: http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/googles-chrome-browser-could-b.html

[bascule]

Well, I tried it out. The UI is a bit ugly, at least on Windows. It reminds me of Ubuntu Gnome. I like what they're going for conceptually but it seems a lot like how I already use Opera.

 

But that said, my overall impression is positive. Memory usage is much lower than FF3, and it feels quite fast.

 

It needs OS X support, gestures, and adblock. Once they get that I can see it becoming my primary browser.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Another important question: can it support Firefox-style extensions? Those are much of what makes Firefox so awesome, and I can't see Chrome doing nearly as well without the extensibility of Firefox.

[bascule]

Chrome has plug-ins, which are discussed extensively in the Chrome comic:

 

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

 

...but they're proprietary to Chrome, so...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I presumed they meant plug-ins such as Flash.

[Pangloss]

I'm gonna wait a bit but I love the competition. It's already managed a 78 on the slippery ACID3 test. One of my favorite features that I've heard about is that the autocomplete feature on the URL bar avoids sending you back to long, complex sub-addresses. I really hate when that happens. Also the nine-most-recent-pages default page is kinda cool, and its security mode actually seems to trump IE8's upcoming security mode. I'm a little skeptical about the "no-popups, no mal-ware" claim, though.

 

I checked out that comic earlier, btw, and it is awesome. It's not only a cool way to explain Chrome's technical underpinnings, it's also a really engaging and informative explanation of process isolation, virtual machines, procedural testing methods, sandboxing, and so forth. (Although I kinda cringed a bit when they bragged about Javascript being "classless", but it's supposed to be an entry-level explanation.)

 

(One word of warning: It's 39 pages long!)

 

One thing I'm curious about is whether ActionScript 3.0 embedded in Flash movies are executed inside the JS VM. Anybody know? I'm guessing not (isn't it compiled before outputting to SWF?).

[insane_alien]

Have you guys read the bit in the EULA that basically says you give google the rights of all the material you put on the web with chrome?

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

 

you can't honestly say that there is nothing dodgy about that.

[Gilded]

Have you guys read the bit in the EULA that basically says you give google the rights of all the material you put on the web with chrome?

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

 

you can't honestly say that there is nothing dodgy about that.

 

Google is a little bit whoor, a little bit whaeey, a little bit swish-swish-swish! A little bit dodgy. They'll nick anything.

[bascule]

you can't honestly say that there is nothing dodgy about that.

 

Looks like the copy and pasted the YouTube EULA...

[Sayonara]

One thing I'm curious about is whether ActionScript 3.0 embedded in Flash movies are executed inside the JS VM. Anybody know? I'm guessing not (isn't it compiled before outputting to SWF?).

Afaik it is still handled by the flash plugin before being outputted.

[bascule]

Have you guys read the bit in the EULA that basically says you give google the rights of all the material you put on the web with chrome?

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

 

you can't honestly say that there is nothing dodgy about that.

 

Looks like it was a mistake... apparently Google forgot this was a browser, not a web site:

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

 

It's already managed a 78 on the slippery ACID3 test.

 

That's odd considering Webkit nightlies were getting 100/100 back in March. Most likely passing acid3 wasn't one of Google's top concerns, or they just haven't been keeping up with the Webkit HEAD.

 

Although I kinda cringed a bit when they bragged about Javascript being "classless", but it's supposed to be an entry-level explanation.

 

I don't think they were bragging so much as pointing out that it makes it difficult to optimize JavaScript. You can inline "methods" (i.e. anonymous functions stored in an "object") for one object, but that same optimization can't be applied to other objects. However, people end up using objects as if they belong to a class anyway, so by inferring hidden "classes" optimizations made to one object can be applied to all objects of the same class.

 

One thing I'm curious about is whether ActionScript 3.0 embedded in Flash movies are executed inside the JS VM. Anybody know? I'm guessing not (isn't it compiled before outputting to SWF?).

 

Flash isn't something it's easy to interoperate with, however it has one of the best ECMAScript VMs available, Tamarin. Given the sheer amount of time Adobe has had to optimize it I would expect Tamarin to perform on par with V8 (if not faster).

[NeonBlack]

Not very many options, has some scrolling issues, but my biggest complaint is how it looks. One of the things I really hate is when an app has complete disregard for window styles.

[Pangloss]

Flash isn't something it's easy to interoperate with, however it has one of the best ECMAScript VMs available, Tamarin. Given the sheer amount of time Adobe has had to optimize it I would expect Tamarin to perform on par with V8 (if not faster).

 

Thanks for the info on that. Very interesting.

[Dudde]

Not very many options, has some scrolling issues, but my biggest complaint is how it looks. One of the things I really hate is when an app has complete disregard for window styles.

 

Actually to be honest, I kinda like it. Everything is out of my way - I downloaded the beta intending to uninstall it after checking it out, ended up hanging onto it for further testing and review Usually it takes me forever to edit my layout how I like it, where nobody but I can get to it! If they make a few mods to the browser I think I would start using it.

[TrickyPeach]

I think these are particularly interesting:

 

http://getclicky.com/global-marketshare-statistics

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1637216

 

 

Not very many options, has some scrolling issues, but my biggest complaint is how it looks. One of the things I really hate is when an app has complete disregard for window styles.

I completely agree, it's not only irritating because it looks ugly but it's arrogant too. I like to have my own style, uniformly.

 

I'm sure Mozilla is not too happy about it. It'll probably cut more into Firefox users than IE users.

Check the first link I posted to see the relative percentages.

[alan2here]

4 processes, each one uses 25% CPU. One starts wanting loads of CPU so it gets 90% because no other three processes are using more than 2% CPU each. The hungry process then locks up but it makes not one tiny bit of difference to moving the other windows and tabs around and having them function. You then close the misbehaving tab and it's gone. In a moment, just like that. You released the mouse button from the cross in the corner and it wasn't there anymore and now you can't even remember if it was ever there it was so effortless. It's just melted away in an instant and stress free way. like turning off a light.

 

Apparently such a scenario is really hard as no OS seems to have this right yet. Chrome is claiming to have this sorted though.

Edited October 5, 2008 by alan2here

[iPeppers]

All in all, I'm liking what I see. It seems like it has a lot of promise, and I'm writing this message using chrome right now!

 

I'm assuming that the look is just temporary, and that they are working on that. It's not that I think it looks bad, but would it be too much to ask for it to use the same windows styles as everything else, so that it doesn't look completely out of place?

 

Other than that, my only other really big complaint right now is that I can't seem to see an option to keep from having my history recorded. I did notice that you can open an "incognito window", which effectively does what I was after, but there is also no option to always open in incognito window mode.

 

I like the option of opening a bunch of tabs of my choosing when the browser starts.

[Severian]

Other than that, my only other really big complaint right now is that I can't seem to see an option to keep from having my history recorded. I did notice that you can open an "incognito window", which effectively does what I was after, but there is also no option to always open in incognito window mode.

 

You shouldn't be so ashamed of the porn sites you visit - you should embrace your sexuality!

[iPeppers]

You shouldn't be so ashamed of the porn sites you visit - you should embrace your sexuality!

 

I'm not! I would just like to free up all that extra memory that the porn sites are taking up in my history. That and I don't think my girlfriend will want to know that I have such an addiction when she uses my laptop.

 

Hopefully by the time it gets to version 1, google will have taken into account my needs, but I still don't know if I will switch from firefox. I don't like the idea of giving one company so much power. I already use so many google services like their search, gmail, earth... etc. I don't want to give my soul over to google yet.

[nitric]

i like it so far, as with most new browsers it needs inprovment, in a bit im going to try some AS 3.0 on it, will post results

 

as far as i see all the material i made with ActionScript 3.0 work in google Chrome perfectly

[khelben1979]

Google Chrome was unable to display videos from YouTube the last time I tried it.

 

So far I can't say that this browser is okay for my needs. Firefox is the best, in my opinion.

[elmejor]

yup used it...liked what i saw, the neat and clean design is surely a plus point for the browser. but some how i am back with my FF may be 'old habits die hard'