Google Chrome 3.0

http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-chrome-30.html

by nreece • 17 years ago

49 52 17 years ago

googlesystem.blogspot.com

"You shouldn't read too much into Google Chrome's version numbers. Just because you can now install Google Chrome 3.0, it doesn't mean that Google wants to appear more mature than it already is."

* cough(bullshit)

Reply

buugs• 17 years ago

Really they have caught up to firefox without implementing new features.

Reply

andreyf• 17 years ago

The lady doth protest too much.

Can't really blame, them, though. They're aiming for the corporate market, and there, the people deciding between Chrome 2.0 and IE 8.0 really don't care for the difference between Java and JavaScript. Well, maybe not the people deciding, but certainly the people they have to explain those decisions to.

Reply

smokinn• 17 years ago

Well, if you compare Chrome 3.0 vs Firefox 3.0 (or 3.5), what features does Chrome not have? As far as I can tell it's only missing Firefox's extensions so if you can live without Adblock, Firebug, etc you can trade the extensions for Chrome's outright speed.

Reply

pohl• 17 years ago

It's worth noting that WebKit's "Web Inspector" is present in Chrome, which is roughly equivalent to Firebug...so you're not really having to live without that, even.

Reply

adnymarc2• 17 years ago

And still no full release version for Mac / Linux. I find this particularly interesting considering the Google "Operating System" is going to be a custom interface on top of a Linux kernel.

Reply

dagw• 17 years ago

I've been using the Linux version for several month now and honestly cannot tell the difference between it and the windows version. Just as stable, just as fast, and flash works without any problems. I'm guessing there is a good reason why they're not comfortable releasing it yet, but as an end user I haven't run across that reason.

Reply

spydez2• 17 years ago

Chrome for Mac is similar. Firefox is my main browser, but I give Chrome a whirl once a week or so and have yet to notice any deficiencies.

Reply

mattyb3• 17 years ago

I'm running Chromium on Ubuntu x86_64, and I've yet to get Flash to work with anything other than YouTube.

Reply

lamby• 17 years ago

On the other hand, Chromium under GNU/Linux distributions is nowhere near there, probably due to the excess embedded code copies.

Reply

javery• 17 years ago

Will browser companies skip version 6? In the same way hotels skip the 13th floor?

Reply

adnymarc2• 17 years ago

Hopefully browser companies will be more rigorous about migrating their users to newer versions so that we avoid the issues IE6 has presented by still having a large install base even after two subsequent versions have been released.

Reply

brown9-2• 17 years ago

I like Chrome, and the new version does a feel a tad quicker, but goddammit already how much longer until extensions are in the official releases?

Reply

tumult• 17 years ago

They were recently enabled by default in the Chromium builds. Lots of features are still missing (all of the interface/toolbar stuff only works in Windows right now, for example, and installed extensions are purged with every restart of the browser on OS X/Linux). The extension API is lightweight and fantastic though, so I'm with you in hoping that they get make it into Chrome sooner rather than later.

Reply

jdbeast00• 17 years ago

hopefully the back button will work more consistently now

Reply

cmalabs• 17 years ago

"Chrome includes video codecs that allow you to embed videos without using slow and unreliable plug-ins like Adobe Flash."

Compared to quicktime/media player and the slew of plugins from the previous generation, flash is much much more reliable.

Reply

dchest• 17 years ago

Compared to QuickTime _on Windows_. On Mac it's not so slow and doesn't load CPU that much (compared to Flash/Mac).

Reply

nestlequ1k• 17 years ago

Bullshit. Load a hour long quicktime video from blip tv using safari. It will hang your browser every time. This is on a latest gen Macbook Pro

Reply

acdha• 17 years ago

If you want the lowest common quality video, yes. Flash video performance and quality are noticeably lower, though, so it really doesn't scale well beyond YouTube-level video.

In practice, widely deployed beat better quality handily.

Reply

_ck_2• 17 years ago

You know what's still missing and I'm surprised...

there's no way to see raw headers sent/received in the dev tools!

Reply

brodie• 17 years ago

Is the Resources panel not adequate? Granted, it does format the headers, but it does show the HTTP method, the request headers, and the response headers for the page and each resource.

Reply

_ck_2• 17 years ago

D'oh! You are absolutely right. Somehow I've missed that little sub-menu all this time.

Reply

c00p3r• 17 years ago

It is time for next-gen "no flash" browser games and "no java" web-apps.

Reply

sp332• 17 years ago

Hell yeah! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=825830

Reply

heycarsten• 17 years ago

I realize there is probably no place for it in marketing banter, but it bothers me that they don't give the WebKit project any visible credit.

Reply

amackera2• 17 years ago

That would steal focus away from Google's promotion of their secret magic sauce that they sprinkle on everything to make it better.

Reply

cdibona• 17 years ago

Well, the sauce is nice, but more realistically, why should every story about chrome mention webkit? How could we (google) police that? We mention webkit all the time and , more importantly, try to get our fixes and patches upstream.

Reply

psadauskas3• 17 years ago

I feel the same about Safari and Webkit towards KHTML.

Reply

gecko• 17 years ago

Back when Safari first came out, there was a lot of credit given to KHTML, and Apple quickly had public-facing Subversion repositories available with full product history so that KHTML could adopt any changes they wanted. Since then, WebKit and KHTML have gone radically different directions, to the point that I'm not honestly sure the latter exists anymore.

Apple, I thought, did the right thing by providing a full hat-tip to KHTML at the time of the fork. I also think their attitude towards KHTML since then has been completely fair.

Reply

truebosko2• 17 years ago

Awesome! Extensions being enabled by default in the dev channel is great news. I've been semi-following the documentation for it all and it's been improving at a nice steady pace (just like the browser :-))

Also, as mentioned from others it runs just fine on Linux for several months now so go ahead and try it! You'll realize quickly how you don't need all those Firefox extensions.

Reply

AndrewDucker• 17 years ago

Not all of them. But if you think I'm surfing without AdBlock then you have another think coming...

Reply

truebosko2• 17 years ago

You can get Adsweep for Chrome which works pretty well.

http://www.adsweep.org/

It's discontinued, but it works.

Reply

netsp2• 17 years ago

Does anyone find that chrome is just unnecessary? It seems like google got to the game just when all the other browsers hot a point when they are all good.

Not long ago, FF seemed like a real edge. Now I just use it cuz I'm used to it and it has extensions that I am used to. Safari is also good and even the new IE is good. I wouldn't mind using either of them or using chrome. The pace of improvement seems to be strong and even.

I have no beef with an extra competitor, but I am surprised to say I have a browser and its good.

Reply

RyanMcGreal• 17 years ago

I think we can fairly credit Chrome with dramatically raising the bar for javascript performance across the competing browser engines. The V8 virtual machine for Chrome compiles JS to machine code rather than interpreting it or running in bytecode. Mozilla has since responded with the TraceMonkey optimization for its javascript engine; WebKit developed SquirrelFish Extreme; and so on.

Reply

netsp2• 17 years ago

SUre. extra competition. An extra place for innovation to happen. All good. But it doesn't seem to amount to using the browser does it?

Reply

fjabre2• 17 years ago

Chrome + Firefox = one browser to rule them all.!

Reply

fjabre2• 17 years ago

lol. To guys with 'good' karma: not LTR fans I take it?

It's worth noting that together these browsers will take significant market share from IE and Safari, especially when Chrome is released for mac later this year. Even more interesting is FF strong ties and history with Google.

Reply

seshagiric• 17 years ago

I don't know if anyone noticed, the page has an ad link for IE 8.0 at the very top before the article begins. That looked funny.

Reply

thejay• 17 years ago

still waiting to try the official mac version...

Reply

Google Chrome 3.0

Related Stories