Sidebar Sidebar
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'

Posting from it now running in XP on VMware Fusion on my Blackbook and it flies. Really liking it so far, can't wait for the fist OS X build to be released :cool:
 
just realize the new tab functions in chrome displaying most visited website are quite similar with autodial addon for firefox.

These are different direction of Opera's speed dial and firefrox's other fast dial stuff (which displays more than 9 thumbnails of preset websites)

I guess the purpose mainly being giving users easier access to his/her fav websites without more than one click. Its especially important for Chrome since it doesn't have a urlbar drop down list like firefox or opera.

For this purpose, I think thumbnails are not necessary, rather, I would prefer it gives more websites like autodial does, (pic)
 

Attachments

  • autodial.png
    autodial.png
    102.7 KB · Views: 113
yeah the general reaction around the office today was "groaaan, ugg another browser to test for"

At this point in the game the last thing anybody needs is another browser, but the fact that googles name is on it means people will use it.

Having said that, I loaded it up via virtual box and checked a few sites, nothing exploded, so hopefully it won't have any quirks to work around.
 
I was playing around with it for an hour or so. For a 0.2 Beta it's a good piece of software, seemed stable and loaded pages as expected (rendering-wise; though didn't visit a ton of pages). Is it going to be a browser replacement for me? Not a chance (and not just because there isn't a Mac version yet).
  • The UI I hate. It totally ignored basic UI principles for Windows. I mean where the hell is the menu?
  • There's no way to manage bookmarks in a reasonable manner. Very frustrating. Unless I go back to the tab page I can't access my bookmarks unless I show the bookmark bar all the time, which just isn't going to happen. Why waste that much space on the UI for something that belongs in a menu?
  • Serious lack of customization. Needs more preferences
  • I need my ad blocker (I'm surely it'll eventually show up).
  • Security-wise it only had options for SSL 2.0, no 3.0.
  • No page zoom, text increase only.
  • Lacks status bar. I saw what they have in its place and I find the contrast lacking making it hard to read. I use the status bar a lot so that's important to me.
  • JavaScript speeds seems no different than Safari or Firefox for me.
  • The UI lacks intuitiveness. It took me a while to find various things (options, bookmarks, security, etc.).
  • I really don't like the placement of the tabs, that bugs the crap out of me.
Things I like
  • Each tab has its own process.
  • Open source.
  • There making use of webkit instead of creating something brad new.
  • Really having trouble making a list of things I like.
  • One more browser to fight against IE.
So I won't be using it for a while, but once it comes to Mac I'll try it again, and whenever version 1.0 makes it out I'll likely try it again. For the time being though, I'll be sticking with Firefox and all of its extensions that I've come to "need." As a developer the Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug have become indispensable. I use my WebDev toolbar all the time.
 
clevin said:
i managed to run sunspider on it, and to my surprise, its only about 1.4x faster than firefox 3, which makes it about the same, or even slower than firefox 3.1's tracemonkey, or safari 4's squirrelFish.

so my question

1. its not really abut standard, since it didn't use anything new in neither webkit or gecko of past several month

2. its not especially fast as far as Javascript is concerned.

why?

Its indeed very smooth in operation, and extremely light as far as system resource is concerned.

It doesn't bundle with google service, AFAIK.

It has very simple UI and basic functions.

can this benefits all from multi-threading? if so, then I would be very interested in mozilla's plan for firefox 4.

But i have a feeling its not all about that. there are more reason behind it, I think is probably the simple functions of the browser.

I don't agree its a platform, it just provide little as far as a platform is concerned.
Click to expand...

I did the Sun Spider test with Firefox 3.1a2. Here's what I got:
Total: 6339.0ms +/- 4.8%

Then I ran it in Chrome b1:
Total: 3613.0ms +/- 4.7%

So it's about 1.75 times as fast. I think as the VM is optimized it will get faster. This is just an initial release.

The separate-process tabs are something that would be great in Firefox. The big problem there is that after several days of opening and closing tabs, the browser has a ton of memory usage even if you don't have much open. It also allows the system to multitask them, which means better usage of multiple processor cores.

Also, running Flash in a separate process is a really big deal on a dual-core system because flash is such a cpu hog. It also allows you to kill problem flash apps.

With things like Google Gears (add-on with others, included in Chrome), you essentially turn the browser into a platform. The same could be said for GMail, even without Gears. It is a client-server application. A lot runs on the client.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I also did IE8 beta 2. Wow... about 14,000ms.
 
starthere said:
Chrome has blown away the competition in Javascript performance test.

Look at the performance numbers and graphs at

http://monitor20.blogspot.com/2008/09/chrome-blows-aways-safari-ie-and.html
Click to expand...

Their timings do look good on that particular benchmark (obviously one they have optimized against). Safari is making large improvements it JavaScript as well.

Safari Version 3.1.2 (5525.20.1)
Score: 171
Richards: 132
DeltaBlue: 191
Crypto: 106
RayTrace: 134
EarleyBoyer: 410

WebKit r36013 (with SquirrelFish)
Score: 488
Richards: 294
DeltaBlue: 383
Crypto: 689
RayTrace: 449
EarleyBoyer: 791

Safari Version 3.1.2 (5525.20.1)
SunSpider Results

WebKit r36013 (with SquirrelFish)
SunSpider Results

To bad I cannot run Chrome on my Mac Pro under Mac OS X to see the SunSpider results when running under the same environment.

Anyway I hope to see a lot of idea sharing between V8 and SquirrelFish.

---------

OK so I rebooted my Mac Pro into WinXP to have a go at SunSpider...

WebKit r36012 (with SquirrelFish)
SunSpider Results

Google Chrome (0.2.149.27)
SunSpider Results
 
Looks like a multicolored Pokemon ball. :rolleyes: The browser looks nice with the XP Royale theme.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 4.png
    Picture 4.png
    70.4 KB · Views: 131
I'm still not impressed.

Sure, Chrome may be fast, but it's already hard enough to get "traction" with the huge installed based of Internet Explorer users and an increasingly large installed based of Firefox 2.0/3.0 users on the Windows XP/Vista side among most corporate and home users.

I use Firefox 3.0.1 under Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 and find it stable, very fast, and reasonably compatible with most web sites. Why should I clutter my computer's disk and screen space with another web browser, especially given how good Firefox is now? :rolleyes:
 
Wow.

That's all I can say. Chrome is ridiculously fast. :eek:

I'm posting from it right now (running it in Fusion on Leopard.4)

This is coming from someone who loves Safari. Since they share WebKit, I hope Safari and WebKit share improvements. Google's got something going on here... and it's good.
 
ingenious said:
Wow.

That's all I can say. Chrome is ridiculously fast. :eek:

I'm posting from it right now (running it in Fusion on Leopard.4)

This is coming from someone who loves Safari. Since they share WebKit, I hope Safari and WebKit share improvements. Google's got something going on here... and it's good.
Click to expand...

I think in this case, Chrome is more a threat to Safari on the MacOS X side than it is to IE and Firefox on the Windows side, though.
 
Just "happens" to use it?

PlaceofDis said:
Apple's webkit? no.

webkit is open source. Apple just happen to use it too.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's quite "Apple just happens to use it."

http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit Team

Take all the people who aren't from Apple on the WebKit Team, multiply them by two, then you almost have as many people as there are from Apple.

Yes, it's Open Source, but the notion that Apple is not in control of the project or that Apple's use of it is somehow incidental is laughable.
 
Ehhh... To tell you peoples the truth, I think I will stick with Chrome. Despite missing options, plug-ins, and features. (Master password, clear cookies on exit, ad blocking, javascript and cookie management, etc.) But I just like it. With a fast computer, fast internet connection, Chrome is blazing fast. Now I just have to wait until: Chrome on the Mac, Snow Leopard, Nehalem Processor, that 100 MPBS internet connection, and my iMac. (which I will buy after Nehalem and SL) Hahah. Ha.
 
Veri said:
It's not quite analogous, but I'm suddenly reminded of what happened when Spyglass dealt with Microsoft... bah, anything that annoys the Mozilla Foundation is worth a laugh in my books :cool:.

I bags ("this isn't public school, Wilson!") first development on Google AdWords ad blocker. And no, Google, most people don't use the web for "apps" - beyond maybe a mail client. Locally hosted software works just great, and it takes advantage of all that tasty local native speed, reliability and security, just as it has since the early '80s when your intended model last went out of fashion. But keep up the good work with search - it's what you do well.
Click to expand...

True this sort of computing did go out of style, but I'm seeing a *slight* resurgence of this school of thought...why use your local computer for the "heavy lifting" when you can have a big powerful beast of a machine hosting the apps for you? I know I know, I'm not 100% sold yet either, but it is interesting...
 
clevin said:
My brief verdict is

Its a good browser, and simply a browser, not a platform.

It won't replace any other browsers, except maybe safari, it just has so many common stuff as safari, while lack of features in firefox, opera, or even IE8.

of course, since its for windows, its good windows users finally can see what safari could, should have been.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. That was a really intelligent review. How many people actually use all the features of Firefox or Internet Explorer? I'd bet it's less than 1% of the population that uses many of the features of FF or IE that aren't in Safari or Chrome. Oh and Clevin, in the very first initial release of firefox beta (I forgot what it was originally called) what sort of features did it have over this browser? None? maybe a buggy plugin architecture that was a little more accepting of all sorts of plugins? Give it sometime. Sheesh.
 
It won't replace any other browsers, except maybe safari, it just has so many common stuff as safari, while lack of features in firefox, opera, or even IE8.
Click to expand...
Well I opposed that it will replace Safari and not IE8, IE8 basically shows what MSoft does best, copy and make it worse. See how slow tab browsing is in IE7?

IE8 is a copy cat of every browser out there, MS need to do that or IE will die and buried 10feet (extra then the normal one) in the earth.

Firefox is great because of the plugins.

I think in this case, Chrome is more a threat to Safari on the MacOS X side than it is to IE and Firefox on the Windows side, though.
Click to expand...
I won't argue that Chrome is a threat to Safari on the OS X but I guess its a threat for every browser out there. But look at it this way, why do there are still many IE users even though we all know how crappy that browser is? Simple, its cause its already installed in the OS, its same to Apple, some people wont bother into downloading Google Chrome no matter how much they promote it like Firefox because its already installed, why uninstall an application that is already installed to you by default?

Remember, we all (the conscious web browser users) have been telling to the public how IE sucks and we should really use Firefox, Firefox has been promoting their safer browser stuffs but look at the numbers after years of persuasive. IE is still the major used browser out there.

It's surprising to know that there are a huge number of people who still rely on Microsoft products while there are better alternatives.
 
junker said:
Sorry to be rude - but: So what!?!
Click to expand...

Well - read the textbook if you really want to know the details.

I think this is realy great! The more browsers that really build on standards on not on proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight are great. What Apple and Google are trying is a to create a web that is based on open standards and Microsoft Adobe are trying the opposite in order to protect their market share. Its exactly what Microsoft did all the years - and there are already many applications in the enterprise intranets that rely on Microsofts proprietary solutions - impossible to use Firefox or Safari e.g.

I think Google brings some fresh new thinking as well and maybe Apple can leverage it with another version of Safari.

I am not sure if I would switch to any other browser on the Mac then Safari, because I just love this browser but on Windows I will give it a try.

On Windows I don't think that Chrome will eat into IE market share, only into Firefox and Safaris because if someone knows and cares only a tiny little bit about computers and or browsers he/she long switched to Firefox. Someone who still uses IE has just no idea about computers or has to use it for company policy reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back