Google launches internet browser [Merged]

Constant_Change

Having just got this working in FF3 I thought I'd try it in Chrome. Results are almost identical but it seels a lot slower.

Marty_J

Conor wrote: »

Sadly it is following the trend of most of the stuff Google releases nowadays where its mostly good but there's bugs which show that there's been next to knack all testing and quality control.

It's a beta for goodness sake. Of course it's going to have bugs.

How are they supposed to test it without letting anyone use it?

If it's anything like Gmail, it'll be in perpetual BETA and that way they can get away with sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the bugs.

As far as I can see, Google do quite a lot of work on Gmail. And what with POP3 access, you don't even need to use its web interface.

amcluesent

Chrome seems way faster on the new netbooks (using an Asus 901) and it makes better use of the limited screen display on these tiny machines. If only it had adblock functionality....

[Deleted User]

amcluesent wrote: »

Chrome seems way faster on the new netbooks (using an Asus 901) and it makes better use of the limited screen display on these tiny machines. If only it had adblock functionality....

Google, the largest provider of keyword advertising on the internet, aren't likely to introduce ad blocking

[Deleted User]

sra wrote: »

Right-click on the blue tab bar beside the tabs. One of the options is 'Task Manager'

This tells you how much memory each tab is taking up individually

The information on Firefox was taken from Windows Task Manager, where Chrome was taken from their proprietary Task Manager and cross referenced with Windows Task Manager.

I mentioned before, but each tab process was between 25-37MB RAM

Conor_3

Marty_J wrote: »

It's a beta for goodness sake. Of course it's going to have bugs.

But not massive blatantly obvious ones that are instantly obvious and affect a very large percentage of users.

How are they supposed to test it without letting anyone use it?

By releasing it to test groups, using software test techniques etc etc.

Conor_3

amcluesent wrote: »

Chrome seems way faster on the new netbooks (using an Asus 901) and it makes better use of the limited screen display on these tiny machines. If only it had adblock functionality....

Chrome is not way faster, it just appears that way. Basically to make it look faster, they upped the scroll speed and also don't display page content until most of it has been loaded. Going to my homepage, I'm presented with a white screen for several seconds until its fully loaded it in the background and then it renders it. Firefox brings it up in half the time and yes, I did flush the cache.

There's been a lot of smoke and mirrors built into the GUI.

tradetime

Just hours after the release of Google Chrome, researcher Aviv Raff discovered that he could combine two vulnerabilities — a flaw in Apple Safari (WebKit) and a Java bug discussed at this year’s Black Hat conference — to trick users into launching executables direct from the new browser.

The Google Chrome user-agent shows that Chrome is actually WebKit 525.13 (Safari 3.1), which is an outdated/vulnerable version of that browser.

Apple patched the carpet-bombing issue with Safari v3.1.2.

Worth knowing if you are going to play with Beta products there will be risks, not just of it not working.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843

Inactive

Sorry, no Chrome for me, I just plain don't trust Google.:rolleyes:

mr_fishbulb

Like it so far. Sites (the ones that work) load very quickly - BBC news is so fast.

Scrolling is very jerky.

Bit worried that saved passwords are stores in plane text.

Done's work with a lot of sites - I can't even sign into iGoogle!