Comments for: UPDATED: Google dives head-first into browser wars with Chrome

So the idea is that google buys up companies and then makes their application only run if you install that chrome crap in the future I gather eh, that's just great.

#36. Posted at 02:48 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

stix

It seems fast on single tabs but when loading 10 tabs at once its slower than FF.

FF loads my 10 tabs in 7 srconds where Chrome takes 18 seconds. Checked and triple checked same results.

#36, That probably can't be avoided. FF can asynchronously send o... : sroylance (#51) «

#51, You're forgetting another fact, Chrome is beta, and it ha... : Meadows (#54) «

#54, Speaking of Beta performance here is a quote from a st... : poulpy (#63) «

#63, Also keep in mind that XP ran very fine on old sing... : Meadows (#82) «

#82, I'm sorry but I notice the single-core and singl... : sigher (#102) «

#23. Posted at 11:59 AM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

radix

Maybe folks from the Internet Explorer team should read Google's Chrome web comic, perhaps they will learn something useful (page 11 comes to mind).

#23, nobody 'read' that 'comic' till page 11 except you, you are ... : sigher (#101) «

#15. Posted at 10:22 AM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

SonicSilicon

Chrome. A browser named Chrome.
Not to be confused with a certain browser's interface formatting named Chrome.
Sure.

#15, Well I'm sure google's effort is named chrome for its outwar... : sigher (#100) «

#2. Posted at 09:27 AM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

Meadows

I'm starting to wonder whether Google stole Microsoft's idea, or vice versa, with the process separation thing. Doesn't matter I guess, end users benefit either way.

#2, If they're making noise about "the next generation of web ap... : ludi (#20) «

#2, I'm sure this wasn't stolen from either browser; it's a fair... : SNM (#22) «

#22, To run things in separate processes is old, and pre-dates... : sigher (#99) «

#37. Posted at 02:57 PM on Sep 2nd 2008, Edited at 03:21 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

DreadCthulhu

Well, I am making this post using Chrome - the browser seems fast, and works just fine on some pages I commonly visit. Memory usage isn't too bad - I opened up this page, a youtube video, hotmail, and my bank's homepage, and it uses ~170 MiB of RAM, compared to 150 MiB for Firefox 3 with a ton of extensions.

The UI, on the other hand, I really don't like. The tabs over the address bar & the lack of a proper Windows menu bar (with a Bookmarks menu!) would get really annoying in extended use. That, and I really don't like the whole bookmarks bar thing. Seems to me that Google could easily have kept the standard Windows menu, and just placed the books bar directly to the right of it. I also don't like the single address bar/search bar. I prefer them separate, like Firefox, as it makes it much easier to switch search engines. I also don't like the single refresh/stop button; I much prefer separate buttons.

Between the crappy UI, and lack of any extensions (yet anyways) I doubt I will switch from Firefox. Chrome just doesn't seem do anything better than Firefox, in my opinion, though I will play around with it some more.

#37, it's very obvious you didn't read about all the design decis... : Tamale (#49) «

#49, And you didn't read the EULA if you installed chrome. : sigher (#98) «

#18. Posted at 10:41 AM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

clone

happy with FireFox but interested in Chrome...... I'll likely try it 6 months after it comes out, Firefox keeps getting better but the tabs on each page sounds nice.

no I don't find cntrl-t to be an issue but for point and click it'll be nice.

#18, Middlemousebutton. : sigher (#97) «

#58. Posted at 05:29 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

Tamale

Has anyone noticed how freaking fast and smooth google maps is in Chrome?

Google's not kidding around with this Web 2.0 stuff... with a browser like chrome web apps really do start to feel as snappy as full-blown OS apps..

this is the beginning of something big, folks

#58, Doesn't seem faster to interact with on my computer compared... : poulpy (#60) «

#60, Firefox 3 has a pretty speedy javascript engine, IIRC. : A_Pickle (#93) «

#93, FF3 is much better than IE in this respect, but Chrome... : muyuubyou (#94) «

#58, Yep, the beginning of 8 years of beta ;) : muyuubyou (#64) «

#53. Posted at 04:42 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

Battleglue

People please, read that silly little comic that Google put up, or at least the end of it. Chrome isn't out to murder your precious Firefox, opera or anything.

Anyways, I am testing it out right now. I like it, I find the UI on vista matches pretty well. I really like the feature when opening a tab.

It's fast, not that buggy and I don't see it getting anything but better right fast.

#53, You have to love the comic ;) My €0.2c, I find it quite fast ... : poulpy (#59) «

#59, Uh, Chrome does have spell check on-the-fly. It even sugg... : titan (#84) «

#84, Err I must have been drunk because now at work I can s... : poulpy (#90) «

#89. Posted at 10:25 AM on Sep 3rd 2008

Edit Reply

Forge

Day #2 update. I still get a raging manlove for Chrome. It's still wickedly fast.

Missing Foxmarks more. Wish Chrome had anything resembling RSS functionality.

Would probably be my ideal browser if not for Foxmarks+RSS+Firefox's more robust browser saving/resuming stuff that it does.

#83. Posted at 06:49 AM on Sep 3rd 2008

Edit Reply

pedro

Hmmm... seems very nice for a beta.

Running on XP x64 and guess what? No Flash support. But I reckon now Google's in this game 64-bit Flash may finally become a reality.

#83, Flash worked on vista 64 bit but java didn't work (it's not ... : provoko (#88) «

#87. Posted at 08:59 AM on Sep 3rd 2008

Edit Reply

Hattig

I've been using it for a couple of hours or so now, and I must say that it is a very nice bit of software.

Sure, there are a couple of areas that could be better, but it's an early beta.

One thing is for sure - it's a hell of a lot better than Safari on Windows.

#85. Posted at 08:29 AM on Sep 3rd 2008

Edit Reply

Fighterpilot

Sure is nice and fast...a bit spooky being so clutter free but probably won't take long to get used to that.
Copy and paste links from Imageshack into a forum post was a bit funky and wouldn't work the first few times.
I like the way the status bar just pops up down the bottom of the screen like that..very nice.

#81. Posted at 01:18 AM on Sep 3rd 2008

Edit Reply

Hance

I like it more and more. Its fast and does the things I need a browser to do.

#80. Posted at 10:43 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

AbRASiON

Doh! Win2k at work, no go, curses.

#69. Posted at 06:19 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

Maddog

Installs under Vista in C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application ...

No UAC intervention ...

#69, Very well behaved app. : StashTheVampede (#78) «

#69, Maddog is that you? : AbRASiON (#79) «

#39. Posted at 03:03 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

derFunkenstein

fast loading, quick rendering pages...this ain't too shabby. Plus it inherits a feature of safari that you can resize text input boxes (like the box where you type your comments). Kinda neat.

#39, Seems kind of pointless to me - how often does one run out o... : DreadCthulhu (#41) «

#41, Well, personally I often find myself running out of sp : Mourmain (#42) «

#42, Isn't that what the scroll bar is for? : cygnus1 (#44) «

#41, think of it more when you're writing a long post in a for... : derFunkenstein (#50) «

#41, I loled... : Toasty (#77) «

#75. Posted at 07:55 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

PerfectCr

No mac version :(

#75, It's coming :) : derFunkenstein (#76) «

#73. Posted at 07:19 PM on Sep 2nd 2008, Edited at 08:24 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

0g1

I don't think multi-processing the tabs is a good idea because of many reasons including slower task switching, cluttering the processes, using more memory ... the memory problem in multi-threading they describe is just a bad design. Their multi-processing solution is relatively easier, but it isn't the best way of getting the results they want.

They say that the browser launches 'applications' instead of 'webpages'. I think a better phrase would be 'sub-objects' because Chrome is the application and it displays certain types of objects. Simply because they are 'sub-objects' they should not be spawned at the same level as the parent object (a process) but at a lower level (a thread).

#70. Posted at 06:22 PM on Sep 2nd 2008, Edited at 06:26 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

rekta

Seems to be working in my Vista 32bit Ultimate and my XP. So far it is nice and plain simple.

I just hate the "Most Visited" page when you spawn it. It shows sites that shouldn't be shown! If you know what I mean. lol

The "incognito" feature is nice.

Firefox is still the best though. But there is no harm in trying others.

#70, Lol, I was thinking that would happen and I was hoping they ... : 0g1 (#72) «

#71. Posted at 06:52 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

DrDillyBar

Hey, this things pretty zippy, that's for sure.
After reading the whole comic, I think this may just be my new browser officially, once it leaves Beta status.
tres cool

#14. Posted at 10:15 AM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

alsoRun

Right now, I am using a browser with 20% market share. I do not want to use it when Firefox's market share goes down to 10% or less with this Google attack.

I follow the masses.

#14, No you don't. : indeego (#68) «

#65. Posted at 05:55 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

Maddog

It would appear that Chrome does not like Symantec Endpoint ... will have to wait until they are on better terms to try it out ...

#38. Posted at 03:01 PM on Sep 2nd 2008

Edit Reply

5150

For some reason, when I try to install it, it shows up in Task Manager for a second and then disappears. I've even tried to reboot. Running Vista Ultimate 64-bit.