Well, as much as I hate to say it, I think IE is probably the most supported browser... IE and Firefox, that is, and I like Firefox, its nice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google to Launch Webkit Based Web Browser Called 'Chrome'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, as much as I hate to say it, I think IE is probably the most supported browser... IE and Firefox, that is, and I like Firefox, its nice.
Webkit handles the standards compliance.
Google is free to focus on features and implementation with Chrome.
Did you read the comic? Google is putting out some incredible new browser features with this. Even if we don't use the browser -- I won't be, I imagine -- these features are going to be available to other browser manufacturers as they are open source. This is wonderful news for Firefox.With Firefox 3.1 now in advanced development with its much-improved Javascript rendering engine, why clutter up the screen and disk space with another web browser?
200%? No. Sorry.
What would you even be basing this on?
The question was one of standards support, an are in which Microsoft continues to lag far behind of the competition. Their implementation of the box model, a very basic principle of page rendering, is still flawed even in IE7. Many people design for IE, especially inexperienced web designers, but the only reason why you're seeing something similar in modern sites, for the most part, is because web designers are using conditional comments or hacks to accommodate Internet Explorer (though IE7 did a lot to resolve this). Most professional designers design first for standards-compliant browsers like Firefox and later for Internet Explorer.
im surprised you can even bash other people before yourself getting more info on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XHTML)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(graphics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Document_Object_Model)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(ECMAScript)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Scalable_Vector_Graphics)
enjoy the read.
Now we just need a Google Tunes + Google Tunes Store and a GLAC audio file. (Google loseless audio codec) Still waiting for the download link....
-----------
Still waiting for the download link....-----------
That's funny...
Either way, they're using an open-source rendering engine that is working hard to be standards compliant. Having Google people contribute to it should only improve its standards compliance.
Google has an interest in seeing better web browsers. Faster, more stable, better web browsers increase the number of people who will use google's web-based services like GMail and Docs.
I think that some ie users may install it because it's from Google, a name they recognize. Most non-techies haven't ever heard of Mozilla so that's a harder sell. Many will see friends using it and appreciate its speed and/or stability and download it themselves since they already like Google. Many will also stick with internet exploiter. But it will make Microsoft look bad and may spur them to further improve performance on web-based apps, and google wins that way too.
Now we just need a Google Tunes + Google Tunes Store and a GLAC audio file. (Google loseless audio codec)
-----------
That's funny...
aha, strange MR stripped the last character of the link, let me see if I can fix it, or you can just add a ")" at the end of the links.
Update, FIXED, don't know what happened....tho
I agree with that, assume google has that goal in mind.
V8 is a new engine from scratch, so I m excited to compare it to SquirrelFish from webkit team and tracemonkey from Mozilla team. But in reality, unless it can save 2000 ms in sunspider (which is H-A-R-D to imagine), it won't make measurable difference in users' experiences.
The main thing about Chrome, I doubt is either standard or speed. I think its more about the multi-threading and integration with google services. Which, Im eager to try out!
11am PST News Conf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030025-2.html
Guessing Chrome will be available for download in about a half hour or shortly after the announcement ends.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030025-2.html
Guessing Chrome will be available for download in about a half hour or shortly after the announcement ends.
My intention isn't to bash you at all.
If 'web standards' is defined by green boxes in a line-item list, then we can have a discussion along these lines, and 200% is still a huge stretch even then. Entries on those lists are not created equally, though. A subset of CSS3 features which aren't being used anywhere (though, thank you, Opera and Webkit, for paving the way toward making that possible) aren't anywhere near as important as flawless implementation of CSS2 (for example). Real-world requirements are the best measurement, and while these non-IE rendering engines are all great, there is absolutely no great deficit.
What a nonsensical argument. Is there any indication outside of your imagination that this is likely? Google has already been accused of breaking privacy laws, do you really think they are stupid enough to do this? And besides, as has already been pointed out, it's open source, so you can go and check.
This Google-paranoia is pathetic. Tesco and your credit card company know more about you than Google does.
The "comic-book form" is to convey complex topics clearly, and I thought it worked quite well until I read your post...
You're claiming IE has the best standards support? I don't think I can find a smilie that conveys how incredulous I am at reading that....
What I am saying is as most people use PCs, and the average non-geek Windoze user will use whatever browser comes with their computer, which is IE.
So, websites will be tested with IE, as its very popular.
My intention isn't to bash you at all.
If 'web standards' is defined by green boxes in a line-item list, then we can have a discussion along these lines, and 200% is still a huge stretch even then. Entries on those lists are not created equally, though. A subset of CSS3 features which aren't being used anywhere (though, thank you, Opera and Webkit, for paving the way toward making that possible) aren't anywhere near as important as flawless implementation of CSS2 (for example). Real-world requirements are the best measurement, and while these non-IE rendering engines are all great, there is absolutely no great deficit.
well, I said it before in other discussion, as Im going to repeat again here.
Standard is a MESSY issue, if we take "useful" standard as "meaningful" standard. IE isn't doing bad at all.
Not to mention the fractions of standard working groups are sometimes very sensitive to changes proposed by others, the result is the near death of animated PNG and empty promise from video tag in HTML5. Standard is messy, if there were one thing we can measure, that would be the number of items each engine supports, on that hand, Opera is far better than gecko and webkit, with the latter two doing about the same. Not 200%? , 150%.
Acid3 was constructed under a premise that "no current browser should pass at that time", rather than the premise of "selecting most useful items from the standard pool". Somebody likes to use that test result as evidence too, too bad its sampling mechanism is wrongly headed, the developer himself admit the construction of ACID4 test should avoid giving engine developing teams inside knowledge so they can't do those "shortcut, just for test" optimizations. Like webkit did in acid3.
I don't think he meant standards support.
Anyways... It's 11.... c'mon hurry up.
I got off of my iBook and onto my PC for this....
Download Avail At Noon Pst
Just under an hour to go before it is avail according to a live blog at the press conf.
Just under an hour to go before it is avail according to a live blog at the press conf.
awww man... I was told 11:00Just under an hour to go before it is avail according to a live blog at the press conf.
Edit: I wish Google specified the time.... Now I have to wait. I thought I could wake up and download the second I woke up.
hopefully google has better server than mozilla did with firefox 3.
PS. Am I allowed to post my review on industry board later? or I have to post as reply to this already lengthy thread?
No buffering for me, nice and smooth playback.hopefully google has better server than mozilla did with firefox 3.
Google's new browser in open source. This means you don't have to wine and moand about how long you have to wait for some new feature f bug. If you want it bad enough you have the source code, you do it.
So if you want some kind of "Privacy mode" and it's not there, then you put it there.
What if you don't have the required skills? If the feature is inportent others will want it too and you can organize a group to do the job. That's the whole idea of open source software -- everyone has access to the same exact tools and data as the developers.
man, is that his computer being slow? or the Google Chrome being slow?
I have the feeling google is putting gamble on web-app, things like mozilla prism, fluid or safari 4's function. I think its wrongly headed if thats what they are after...
Is that in 20 minutes?
The feed is good. I am liking what I am hearing.
Now it is 17 min