| This 241 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 241 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  9 ) > > || |
|Google Chrome - Google's Browser Project|
Google Chrome, Google's Browser Project
|Unlike other modern web browsers, which can only run one process at a time, Google Chrome will give each tab its own process. This speeds up overall performance and saves the entire browser from crashing when one tab causes problems. |
The multi-process design requires more memory allocation up front but less memory over time as users tend to multitask. It also prevents your computer from slowing down after you browse for an extended period of time and open/close lots of tabs.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 2:31 pm (utc) on Sep. 3, 2008]
[edit reason] fixed link. [/edit]
|And you use Chrome without paying Google a cent, point? |
Google already uses all your web pages (cache) without paying you a cent, point?
Why would we pay Google to use Chrome?
They are offering Chrome as a freeware product to entice users to use more of their services to click on Adwords.
Why would Google go through the expense of developing a new browser?
1) By pass Firefox, Safari, IE and cut out the middleman.
4) Cut out the competition like Hotmail with a bundled browser for other monetized platforms like Gmail.
5) Get rid of pesky people like me who use NoScript/AdblockPlus/Hostman who never see an Adword/Doubleclick/CommissionJunction type ad nor allow any cookies to be set.
Boy, we should really pay for all that... LOL.
I did pay for a browser once, it was called Netscape when it came in a box back in the day. JMHO.
When you doubleclick a word in the URL-bar, it selects the word, + the dot or slash after it. So you can quickly edit URLs. Firefox would just select the word you doubleclicked.
Many of us surf sites with JS disabled, and then switch to an enabled browser for those sites we trust that require JS. It would be very convenient to have a mid-way option that allows on-site JS but blocks all third-party JS. Most JS sites would still work. Most JS exploits would not work. Many ads would disappear. Pure surfing heaven!
Killing JS? In the 21st century?
I'm all for IE committing suicide straight out of the box; go for it ;)
|The initial End User Licence Agreement (EULA) claimed "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." |
Google reworded their terms yesterday.
|When you doubleclick a word in the URL-bar, it selects the word, + the dot or slash after it. So you can quickly edit URLs. Firefox would just select the word you doubleclicked. |
I want it to just highlight the part of the URL I just double clicked. I don't want the dot or slash. I'm not editing the URL, I'm trying to grab part of it.
I had a problem this morning with Chrome getting slower and slower and was wondering what was wrong. It turns out my Firefox window had another runaway process. Here I was cussing at Chrome and Firefox was the culprit.
It would be nice if Webmasterworld had a Chrome features/bug report forum that Google would monitor. Nobody is going to debug this faster than webmasters.
Just report your Chrome observations directly to Google:
(not to mention you have a full plugin API)
Only time will tell if I'm right but:
1) Google's introducing Chrome as a public Beta, with a link on their main page is a big mistake. The average user doesn't want a Beta anything and in the shape it's currently in they are not about to switch to it, if tried.
By the time it's polished, the buzz will be gone, "banner blindness" will have set in and they will no longer even notice the link to download Chrome. Case closed.
2) He who rules the desktop gets the lion's share of the browser market. Every time a user buys a new laptop or PC, (currently a four or five year cycle?) they get an updated browser from Microsoft. That's where the power lies.
I guess that's why FF has been taking chunks out of M$-IE?
I'm probably one of a small minority who has already made Chrome my default browser; but for me, it wasn't just the major advance in approach (little new technology, but an exceptionally good choice off the shelf), but Google's knack of the intuitive; just as gmail felt good first time I used it (and I've never looked back), so Chrome 'felt like home' - whereas FF, while leagues ahead of IE, was a 'culture shock' that took a while to settle.
Chrome will, without a scintilla of doubt, get much better.
And Google has the most sophisticated marketing system on the planet, as well as probably the most uncluttered vision of the future.
All I'm waiting for now, is a new desktop PC, based on mobile phone architecture, that frees us at last from Bill Gates "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" (and I bear him no grudge on that; 99.999999% of people would have agreed at the time). And if the mobile can already bring us the Internet on a two-inch screen and tiny operating system, why can't it do the same on a 23-inch?
That machine will have a very small operating system, and bring the plug-in to perfection. Neither the 'windows' PC nor the Mac can shrink to the dimensions or flexibility the future needs.
Come on, Google, I'm waiting! ;)
|I'm probably one of a small minority who has already made Chrome my default browser. |
I may be one of a small minority who just uninstalled it. While the party was a blast and lasted for a wee bit, it's back to reality. Once the number of visitors using Chrome exceeds that percentage mark where it becomes a viable browser alternative, I will stick with me proven guns IE and FF.
Google, how do you expect us to use a browser that is half done? It's lacking at the moment. Also, I've been reading quite a few articles about Chrome. I'm not real impressed with Google's claiming something new when in fact it isn't new, just rebranded as something else. I wish I could post links to those articles because there are some really detailed side by side comparisons. Many of the things "you" claim are new apparently are not. IE8 failed at making it known to its users that most of what you claim to be new is already part of their new browser.
So for now, I've uninstalled and will continue to use IE and FF in that order. We are a Microsoft Windows resource. I see no reason why I or any of my team would bail on MS at this point. While there are a bunch of you MS haters about, there are quite a few of us who just happen to dig MS. And, we've made it behave just like Nix!
Chrome? Nice browser from a top brand company. I'll wait it out, wait for all the bells and whistles to get included and then join the party again. ;)
BTW, I just uninstalled my Google Toobar for the first time in years. I've finally extracted myself from that metric. I feel so much better now.
I can understand many going back to FF - probably most, in fact.
But IE really is prehistoric, and I'd be astonished to the point of chest pain if IE8 catches up with FF, let alone moves onto new generation browsing, which FF will surely incorporate into its next offering.
Most of the components of Chrome are not new; but the combination is, advancing on FF, Opera and Safari. IE really isn't in the same ball game, and unless M$ reverse the policy of patent control ("proprietary software rules"), then they cannot conceive of catching up.
All the modern browsers - all - depend to a very large degree on Open Source components; Windows does not even understand the concept. Like 'gullible', the term 'open source' does not even appear in Microsoft's Encarta, which, as I recall, was sidelined by the open source Wikipedia. ;)
None of what you cite and, seemingly, seem to feel is important is going to make a dent in IE's share of the browser market.
Reality check: very, very few people care.
You, I, and almost everybody who posts here is completely atypical as far as browser-users are concerned.
Do you run a site? What are your stats?
Well, I'm afraid you are not correct.
While IE still holds a large share of the market - unsurprising, considering they way they elbowed out Netscape, and the advantages cited by you above, it remains a simple, indisputable fact of life that the trend for IE is down, and has been since FF launched.
It is unlikely that this trend will reverse, unless IE does something intelligent.
Interestingly, despite IE's strong hold on the browser market, people are increasingly changing their default search to Google, which suggests that an innovative Google browser might appeal to them also.
Finally, it is another simple fact of marketing that competition raises public awareness and increases consumer activity. Witness the growing interest in 'advanced' dvd while Blu Ray was in open competition, compared to the moribund market now that BluRay has 'won'.
The leapfrogging of browsers in style and quality will add to the trend against M$. I'm not suggesting (never have!) that M$ will fail tomorrow; but - unless they change their tack on open source - I can see the day that they cease to update IE, on the simple basis that it costs them millions, with a reducing benefit - and increasing ridicule.
I'm more than happy to disagree with you; time will tell.
Meanwhile, go look up the definition of "dent" - don't crunch my front wing and tell me there's 'just a dent'. ;)
[edited by: Quadrille at 5:38 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2008]
|"He who rules the desktop gets the lion's share of the browser market. Every time a user buys a new laptop or PC, (currently a four or five year cycle?) they get an updated browser from Microsoft. That's where the power lies." |
"it remains a simple, indisputable fact of life that the trend for IE is down, and has been since FF launched.
Both of the above statements are true, at least for now. For most computer users over 40, they'll most likely only get Chrome if their teenager installs it for them.
On the other hand, not that terribly long ago IE was being used by close to 90% of my visitors (averaged out over 15 websites). Just checking a few minutes ago, for the first 5 days of Sept, it's down to 77% -- with FF and Safari picking up most of the difference.
To my eyes, that's a significant drop in a relatively short amount of time (a little more than a year).
So yes, MS should be worried that the trend is clearly moving against them, but they are still in the zone where they can wake up and smell the coffee. The question is...... will they?
(Ballmer's in charge with Bill out making not-very-convincing commercials with Jerry, so don't hold your breath!)
From the Sunday edition of "The Independent":
|...Google is looking more and more like the computing giants it set itself up to oppose. And the new Google Chrome browser is the most aggressive example of this so far... |
But for all the wholesome, beanbag-strewn offices, Google is turning into a menacing presence that is using increasingly aggressively tactics to stay above its rivals.
Many people at this board have been saying the same thing now for quite some time; others defend Google and see no problem -- I find it, at the very least, interesting that the media outside of Geekdom is getting increasingly worried. It's nothing "new", but it does seem to be growing...
Read the... Full Story [independent.co.uk]
A Sunday journalist is just one person, whose views are no more significant than yours or mine, and whose fears are fed by communities like this.
Google is a large company that't behaving much like a large company.
To call the release of an innovative new product 'increasingly aggressive' merely shows a lamentable ignorance of the English language. No more than that.
The release of a Google browser has been expected since 2005, so there's really no need for panic.
If you used Chrome to search via Cuil, would it be chruil?
Or would it only be Chruil if you merged Chrome and Cuil?
Google Chrome Receives Heavy Criticism in Germany
|It doesn't get any more "official" than this here. Yesterday, Saturday at around 20:07, Germany's oldest and perhaps biggest prime time news Tagesschau announced the following under the headline "Warning against internet browser"*: |
|The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the internet, as a spokesperson for the office told the Berliner Zeitung. |
Oh-oh, things are heating up.
Why do we all keep ignoring the true meaning of BETA?
In this case, because Google usually does! :)
For example, gmail has been there so long that ALL its major rivals have copied the format - and none of them is in beta; gmail still is after four and a half years.
In G's eyes that must be something along the lines of
"a project that is not quite ready to be revenue-making as it's really just a great idea that fits in with our one-day a week research projects that staff are allowed to pursue - unless - we see it bringing some big bucks in!"
I would imagine that there would also be some financial implication on their shares of a 'proper' project not working as they want it too would ensure they keep it in BETA so they have plenty of reasons to point the fact it was never fully released.
Sorry this latest G project has made me, and a lot of people I know, even more determined to steer well clear... if only someone could come up with a decent search engine (sorry cuil) that I can remember the name of and gets some decent airplay in the media !
I love it.
"IE no longer has 90% market share!"
So the poor pitiful thing is on a downward, ever downward, spiral into oblivion.
There was no way on earth IE was ever going to maintain that kind of share in the long run. It was just a matter of time. It was an unnatural situation - no viable competition.
Now it's dropped to around 80% where it's going to stay because:
Every stats site I've looked at agrees on one thing: Windows users make up around 90% of visitors.
Now, it's perfectly natural that some Windows users would go to the trouble of installing and using and learning the ins and outs of another browser. However, if anybody thinks the percentage of Windows users looking to do that is going to grow much greater than that no matter how hard Google or anybody else pushes, it's wishful thinking.
(I'm not dealing here with whether the wish is good or bad.)
The "Blue E" is right there, on the desktop, all the time, and every site on earth is written to work with it.
I find a lot of people who post about browsers put the cart before the horse - like quadrille, I think - it's not the content of web sites that dictate the capabilities of browsers, it's the capabilities of browsers that dictate the content of web sites.
And everything is restricted by the lowest common denominator. It was only a few years ago that many sites continually avoided useful techniques because they wouldn't render in Netscape 4.7!
|There was no way on earth IE was ever going to maintain that kind of share |
Your point is well taken -- most companies would sacrifice their CFO on the public square for that kind of marketshare (not even Google has it!).
My only point is in reference to "vulnerability" in MS/IE's usage. Between FF, Safari & now Chrome, their overwhelming browser dominance is going to suffer; with "cloud computing" coming on, their desktop applications will inevitably be less necessary; with LIVE never even getting close to critical mass, they are failing in the search wars; etc etc.
None of this is bad, it's just the way it is. The only thing that disappoints me is MS's inability to offer any real competition in search, but that's another thread somewhere else....
Edit: fix spelling error
[edited by: Reno at 4:08 pm (utc) on Sep. 8, 2008]
Cloud computing is a little too cloudy for my taste and so far nobody's made a dime off of it even if they know what it is, 'cause I sure don't.
And it cracks me up that Chrome is supposedly being optimized to work with Google's online apps which don't produce any revenue.
And what are they going to do, turn away IE and FF users?
And are they really going to have the stones to tell IE and FF users that they should switch to Chrome for an "optimized" experience with their apps? The apps that don't make any money? What's wrong with this picture?
As far as search share: MS is like the Terminator. Gates may be gone but the company's got his DNA. Maybe the Yahoo deal will finally come through and together, they'll be a respectable, money-making number two in search and ads. (Number two can be a very profitable position to be in.)
Believe what you will.
Despite all of M$'s advantages, the evidence is utterly clear; consumers are increasingly resistant to M$.
The trend has been to FF, and Chrome may accelerate the trend away from IE.
Unless M$/IE changes the habits of a lifetime, IE ain't gonna win.
Keep believing in IE if it makes you happy, but history says you lose.
The vast majority of my clients use MS. I always suggest FF and some actually make the change.
Looking at market share (various sources) shows MS at 72% and FF at 19%, Safari at 6% and everybody else at less than 1%
Chrome will have to go some to rip a new one on MS. Diversification is sometimes a good thing. Sometimes it is not. Some dinosaurs never die (such as reptiles, birds, and mollusks, oh my!) And even cockroaches have been around several hundred million years.
Browsers are browsers. Apps are apps. Operating Systems are just that...and a lot of the hoopla regarding Chrome has been regarding overtaking the OS and that just isn't going to happen.
|Despite all of M$'s advantages, the evidence is utterly clear; consumers are increasingly resistant to M$. |
There's a big difference between being "resistant" and simply being willing to try something new. Usually on someone's recommendation or a published article. Or the buzz going around campus.
You admit to IE's marketing advantages but then proceed to ignore it. Citing no evidence that leads to the conclusion that consumers are "increasingly resistant".
I doubt if many people give a damn, frankly.
The bottom line for me is this: what practical difference does it make if only three out of five people instead of four out of five people use IE?
None. I still have to support it.
|You admit to IE's marketing advantages but then proceed to ignore it. |
That's not actually true, but whatever. Let's agree to disagree; we're going around in ever decreasing circles. Time will tell who is right. I can wait. :)
|Chrome is supposedly being optimized to work with Google's online apps which don't produce any revenue |
Not yet, but then again, when Google search entered the world stage it didn't make any money either. But when they decided to make revenue a priority, it quickly became a tidal wave. I gotta' think the brainiacs at Googleplex have thought out many moves across the chess board -- all we are seeing so far is the opening.
[edited by: Reno at 3:45 pm (utc) on Sep. 9, 2008]
Where is Google heading, and what it wants to achieve with with Chrome?
Perhaps best summarized by Sam Schillace from Google ( and mentioned in Next Google [webmasterworld.com] thread [Admin Note - subscription required]):
|BETTER BROWSERS |
Prior to Google, everyone said search was done. But the point was that search could have been a lot better. The same is true of browsers today...
The current generation of browsers can already run some pretty sophisticated applications without having to install software, and it's starting to extend to mobile devices too. The next generation of browsers, and the web applications that run on them, will make communication and collaboration even more transparent and let me focus on what I really want to do — connect with the person at the other end and get work done together.
[edited by: tedster at 6:57 am (utc) on Sep. 10, 2008]
[edit reason] shortened the quote - fair use requirements [/edit]
| This 241 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 241 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  9 ) > > |