Early Screenshots from the Mac Version of Google's Chrome Browser

[pohl]

They have a mac team that have been working on chrome for a long time. Maybe they are very small compared to the windows team, and that's the only reason why it's taking so long to have an OSX version, but from the blog post it seems to me that they are having problems with the shared code.

Maybe I'm reading a different blog post, but the one I saw says things like this:

Over the last couple of months, the group working on Mac Chrome (myself included) has shifted gears from layout tests and WebKit compatibility to getting the application user interface up and limping.

To me, this says that their first priorities were to establish a regression testing framework to make sure that they didn't deliver something that rendered badly. Good choice, in my opinion. Maybe you were refering to this, though:

Last week, while I was in Cali, the entire team made a tremendous amount of progress getting the cross-platform model and controller classes scaffolded, topped off with a Cocoa UI...

...but this does not say to me that they are having problems with cross-platform code. Rather, this says to me that they are just now in the process of creating it...as in: prior to their efforts, it did not exist.

 

[doug in albq]

At least it is not that cyan-blue color!

 

[Admonitor]

If you don't like it, don't download it. Just live with the fact that there are other browsers out there and at least some people are glad Google are trying to get this to work on OS X. Some people want a clean, fast browser, which is what Chrome offers.

I'm a switched from Windows (recently) which is when I used Chrome, but I can't really see the attraction of Safari compared to Firefox. Anyone care to explain what makes it so good?

 

[pohl]

...but I can't really see the attraction of Safari compared to Firefox. Anyone care to explain what makes it so good?

I prefer Safari to Firefox. I'm on a team that has made a large DHTML web app using GWT (which is wonderful for that sort of task, by the way). When I grab the corner of the browser window on this app and observe how each rendering engine handles the resize, Safari is always incredibly smooth. Firefox is very jerky. FF isn't always like that: simple pages reflow smoothly upon resize...but complex DHTML shows the lags pretty badly. I have other reasons too...I detest the fancy new uber-bar or whatever it's called. I just want it to get out of my way.

To each their own, I guess.

 

[html]

Agreed

not a compelling browser on windows and even less so on osx. oh well it is nice to have options.

Agreed. The browser is slow, leaves connections open, has lots of memory leaks, lacks good ad blockers, poorly renders pages (yes, I'm aware it's based on webkit, but they took some unacceptable liberties), and does not have anything especially appealing about it.

 

[kurosov]

and oh, yeah, the ugly step child IE last (that's dead last).

Same here. but only because it needs extra attention of its own to get things looking right

 

[AidenShaw]

That would be true, if WebKit were thread-safe, which it is not.

I think that I threw up in my mouth a little....

Not thread safe? Is this amateur hour?

 

[neonblue2]

Heh, yeah, make Aero in OS X

Might actually be not too bad looking

Well we did have something similar once. The pinstripes just made it look bad.

 

[AidenShaw]

So what do you call the mechanism that places processes into the priority queue then, if not the 'scheduler'?

It's called the scheduler, but it does not schedule processes. It schedules the threads within a process if it supports kernel threads. Windows, for example, cannot execute a process - a process has one or more threads that are scheduled.

In practice, of course, for the rare process with only a single thread it's mainly a semantic difference as to whether you schedule the thread or the process. (I say rare because the system often has threads in a process even if the application itself has only one thread.)

There's speculation that 10.6 will use a new scheduler with better thread handling:

http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/os-x-snow-leopard-to-use-ule-scheduler/

 

[airlights]

I am sad to see it not blue. I like the blue.

 

[rexone]

Snap!

You just have to love Google.

I sure hope that's not something that gets removed in the final version. Software is too serious much of the time. It's a web browser, let it have some fun.

Actually I'm pretty cranky with Google at the moment thanks to the Auto Update Agent they have buried in the Google Earth update. It's caused me all sorts of problems, I've had to remove Picasa because of it.
More info here http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/09/02/06/1510228.shtml

 

[ptlnfc]

Nice scrolling hoped.

I just hope the Mac Chrome would have a nice scrolling as other apps, such as Safari and Finder. If you tried Firefox 3 before, you know what I mean.

 

[str1f3]

I'd never trust a google browser. Considering that google's primary mission is total information awareness and their primary source of revenue is advertising, it is a virtual certainty that this browser's modus operandi is to profile and report to advertisers.

If you fear google (and you should), join me in the tinfoil hat brigade.

I'm extremely cautious myself. There are rumors going around that the unified search and address bar is so that google can know which websites you access directly and how often. Not saying this is true only what I've heard.

Can anybody confirm or deny this?

 

[Mackan]

At least it is not that cyan-blue color!

But boring grey color is fine? Uh, if it is something I really dislike about OS X, it's the boring grey colors.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm extremely cautious myself. There are rumors going around that the unified search and address bar is so that google can know which websites you access directly and how often. Not saying this is true only what I've heard.

Can anybody confirm or deny this?

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9114369

Reacting to criticism that its new Chrome browser was essentially acting as a keylogger, potentially recording users' every keystroke, Google Inc. yesterday said it would render anonymous the data it collects from the browser within 24 hours.

A privacy expert said the change's impact couldn't be gauged without knowing exactly how Google will "anonymize" the data it records as users type in Chrome's "OmniBox," the name given to the browser's combination address bar-search bar.

Apparently Google's "do no evil" mantra has been abolished. Google is very scary, don't send them your thoughts.

 

[Les Kern]

So tell me again why the highly extensible and capable Firefox should be replaced by Chrome???
No, don't bother, because it won't be.

 

[str1f3]

If you don't like it, don't download it. Just live with the fact that there are other browsers out there and at least some people are glad Google are trying to get this to work on OS X. Some people want a clean, fast browser, which is what Chrome offers.

I'm a switched from Windows (recently) which is when I used Chrome, but I can't really see the attraction of Safari compared to Firefox. Anyone care to explain what makes it so good?

I would first say that safari is twice as fast, for me, than firefox. Secondly, I would say that UI design is better. Third I would say that firefox has never felt like a OSX native app. There are UI designs that remind me of windows and imitate the UI of OSX. It almost seems like a fake mac web browser. This is something Chrome should learn from. Firefox does have an advantage with extensions and bookmarks/tags, but put too many and it starts to really slow down.

 

[str1f3]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9114369




Apparently Google's "do no evil" mantra has been abolished. Google is very scary, don't send them your thoughts.

Thanks for the read. Very interesting. My distrust for google just grew significantly.

 

[HarleyMan]

I'd like to see that isolation of process within the tab feature.

 

[bobertoq]

As a web designer, the LAST thing I want is another web browser to have to worry about...Firefox and IE are enough.

Please Google...stop wasting your money on this useless project and invest in something that people actually need.

.... seriously.... Well you won't have to do any worrying because Chrome uses Webkit, which is what Safari uses. So, if your website works on Safari, it will work on Chrome..... ............ ...

I'd never trust a google browser. Considering that google's primary mission is total information awareness and their primary source of revenue is advertising, it is a virtual certainty that this browser's modus operandi is to profile and report to advertisers.

If you fear google (and you should), join me in the tinfoil hat brigade.

well if you think Chrome contains spyware or something like that, go look at the source code and find it for me. Then I'll be convinced... Also Google talked about several Firefox extensions they wanted in Chrome, and one of them was Adblock Plus -- an adblocking tool, obviously.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common-google-chrome-objections/
.......

 

[El Magnificante]

Use Google and kiss your privacy goodbye.

 

[AidenShaw]

Thanks for the read. Very interesting. My distrust for google just grew significantly.

You're welcome.

I'm amazed that people are still upset about Microsoft's issues with being declared an "OS monopoly", while being completely clueless about about the dangers and implications of a search monopoly.

Anytime someone suggests "googling" for something, I say that "Yahoo!ing" or "Liveing" or "Asking" for it would be a better idea.

Did you know that the US Department of Justice was within hours of launching an anti-monopoly lawsuit against Google?

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/t...le-was-three-hours-away-from-doj-lawsuit.aspx

Why did Google and Yahoo abandon their proposed advertising agreement last month? Because the Justice Department was three hours away from filing antitrust charges against them.

The Justice Department warned Google and Yahoo that it would be filing the complaint, and even told them the time of day it would do so. Three hours before the deadline hit, the companies gave up the deal.

I'll look for a link to a better story that I've seen - but for now think about this.

 

[kas23]

Use Google and kiss your privacy goodbye.

Don't watch TV either. Every national TV channel, NBC, MTV, Discovery Channel, etc. knows where you are watching them. They then take this information to sell commercial time to businesses you live near. Oh, gosh, what a scary idea!

Additionally, those discount cards supermarkets give out, don't use those either - they're evil too. They may save you a bunch of cash, but they also track your purchasing behavior so they can market other products to you.

The idea of an advertisement/marketing firm studying consumer behavior is ancient. Either get over it, or go live in a cave.

 

[bobertoq]

Use Google and kiss your privacy goodbye.

And who says that? If you think Google is sending all your information to advertisers, look at the source code, and show me the code that's doing the sending, please.

I can't wait until the final product. I just hope it looks more native than it currently does.

 

[str1f3]

You're welcome.

I'm amazed that people are still upset about Microsoft's issues with being declared an "OS monopoly", while being completely clueless about about the dangers and implications of a search monopoly.

Anytime someone suggests "googling" for something, I say that "Yahoo!ing" or "Liveing" or "Asking" for it would be a better idea.

Did you know that the US Department of Justice was within hours of launching an anti-monopoly lawsuit against Google?

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/t...le-was-three-hours-away-from-doj-lawsuit.aspx



I'll look for a link to a better story that I've seen - but for now think about this.

I heard about this. Eric Schmidt called Yahoo (in a rush) to break off the deal as soon as he got the call from the Justice Department. It would in effect be like an acquisition of Yahoo without having to really acquire them because they would essentially have a serious control over the revenues of Yahoo.

As for Chrome, I heard even in Incognito Mode info was still being sent up to Google. Things like that send a shiver up your spine.