Hello guys...
I found these nightlies builds after searching for something on The Google Chrome Browser.
I am wondering if these are the official nightly releases or not?
Link: http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapsho...hromium-rel-xp/
Also are those only for Windows XP an not for Windows Vista?
If you have any information or any official source then do post it here.
Crazysah
Full Version: Google Chrome Nightlies
Neowin Forums > Help & Discussion Center > Software Discussion & Assistance > Web Browser Discussion > Chrome/Safari (KHTML & WebKit)
Nice find.
Not sure if these are official or not.
Not sure if these are official or not.
There are not even a Mac Nightlie release yet.
awesome this allowed me to install it on my work pc since it doesn't have an installer 
nice find!
Quote - (splicer707 @ Sep 4 2008, 20:12) 
Nice find.
Not sure if these are official or not.
Not sure if these are official or not.
I'd bet it's official, since it's hosted in chromium.org which is linked from http://code.google.com/chromium/
PS: shouldn't this be in the KHTML & WebKit sub-forum?
They are official builds. They are more like Firefox's hourly builds though since they are build every hour or few.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapsho...hromium-rel-xp/
You can get the latest chrome-win32.zip here, about 12 MB, and extract it to your preferred location.
You can get the latest chrome-win32.zip here, about 12 MB, and extract it to your preferred location.
Thanks for that one, I used that link yesterday to download a build of Chrome and try it out at work (where we can't actually install programs). This browser has some potential.
Downloading now, latest build has a different coloured icon 
1754 feels slow for me
1754 feels slow for me
is this build still affected by the carpet bombing exploit ?
I'm going to wait until the development picks up before getting involved with these. Would definitely be interested in some Mac betas/nightlies when they are ready 
AppleWebKit/525.19
Quote - (kazuyette @ Sep 5 2008, 19:30)
is this build still affected by the carpet bombing exploit ?
Options -> Minor Tweaks -> tick "Ask where to save each file before downloading"
carpet bombing exploit fixed
Quote - (.KICK @ Sep 5 2008, 11:33)
Downloading now, latest build has a different coloured icon
The different coloured icon will probably (in fact almost certainly) be because they are nightly builds. It is easier to distinguish between the nightlies & the betas/finals. E.g. Mozilla have a completely different icon for their Minefield builds (Firefox nightlies).
Someone give me a shout when bigger flash stuff and video sites or page loading doesn't cause the browser to use an entire core to the max.
I like havign a browser that doesn't cause my USB mouse to "lag". when thaty happens I'll try it again, but as long as the cpu usage is liek that I simply can't use it.
I like havign a browser that doesn't cause my USB mouse to "lag". when thaty happens I'll try it again, but as long as the cpu usage is liek that I simply can't use it.
Quote - (CoolCatBad @ Sep 5 2008, 14:00)
AppleWebKit/525.19
Is that the same version used in Chrome beta? Or is it a more recent version?
Quote - (cJr. @ Sep 5 2008, 20:13)
The different coloured icon will probably (in fact almost certainly) be because they are nightly builds. It is easier to distinguish between the nightlies & the betas/finals. E.g. Mozilla have a completely different icon for their Minefield builds (Firefox nightlies).
And I guess that the Chrome logo is proprietary, and the google trademark get replaced by "The Chromium Authors".
Damn seems to load pages even faster than the stable one, fast as hell. Hopefully they will fix the touchpad scrolling issue in one of these nighties.
Quote - (.KICK @ Sep 5 2008, 06:33)
Downloading now, latest build has a different coloured icon
1754 feels slow for me
1754 feels slow for me
Glad it's not just me thinking that. 1754 feels slower than stock Google Chrome.
The :% crash has been fixed already. There's also no need for Google Update.
I wish there was an easy to use bonsai/hgweb like mozilla has. It is a pain to figure out the changes made and they don't have bug numbers for every issue to follow the discussions.
Quote - (ViperAFK @ Sep 5 2008, 09:13)
Damn seems to load pages even faster than the stable one, fast as hell. Hopefully they will fix the touchpad scrolling issue in one of these nighties.
I'd say that maybe something in your touchpad driver because my touchpad scrolls fine for me
Quote - (tsupersonic @ Sep 5 2008, 10:24)
I'd say that maybe something in your touchpad driver because my touchpad scrolls fine for me
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list
Look at the top of the issues list dude, TONS of people have this problem, not just me or just do a quick google search. Mostly happens to people with synaptics touchpads regardless of driver version. I tried getting the latest generic one from synaptics but that didn't work and I already have the latest gateway one.
Slower? So I guess it's not worth downloading the latest night build?
Quote - (.KICK @ Sep 5 2008, 11:33)
Downloading now, latest build has a different coloured icon
1754 feels slow for me
1754 feels slow for me
yes , may be the old icon had all the four colors of MSoft logo
Quote - (ViperAFK @ Sep 5 2008, 10:28)
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list
Look at the top of the issues list dude, TONS of people have this problem, not just me or just do a quick google search. Mostly happens to people with synaptics touchpads regardless of driver version. I tried getting the latest generic one from synaptics but that didn't work and I already have the latest gateway one.
Hmm didn't know that, I too have a synaptic touchpad, but I don't have the official synaptic software installed, where you can control additional things. Look at the top of the issues list dude, TONS of people have this problem, not just me or just do a quick google search. Mostly happens to people with synaptics touchpads regardless of driver version. I tried getting the latest generic one from synaptics but that didn't work and I already have the latest gateway one.
So, testing build 1754, and it feels about the same as the one I installed on release day. About the same speed.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the process per tab?
Quote - (brentaal @ Sep 5 2008, 16:19)
Nothing in the change log, how odd
Has anybody tried them out? Is there like an official build every day like Firefox has?
threads merged
I installed a nightly, but it removed all settings and bookmarks. Why does it do this, and is there any way to stop it from doing that?
Whatever's building the mini installer is probably not working at the moment. 1778's mini installer is holding a build somewhere in the 1740-1750 range.
The user folder is now Local Settings\Application Data\Chromium\User Data (or AppData\Local\Chromium\User Data). Move over your User Data folder from Google\Chrome\.
Quote - (Dessimat0r @ Sep 5 2008, 11:47)
I installed a nightly, but it removed all settings and bookmarks. Why does it do this, and is there any way to stop it from doing that?
The user folder is now Local Settings\Application Data\Chromium\User Data (or AppData\Local\Chromium\User Data). Move over your User Data folder from Google\Chrome\.
Quote - (tom01 @ Sep 5 2008, 10:36)
Am I the only one who doesn't like the process per tab?
I dont see any reason to not liking it.
new build
damn there's been like 4 builds just today.
Atleast you don't have to install them 
I'm not installing it till they remove that awfull updater.
I'm not installing it till they remove that awfull updater.
Quote - (Dessimat0r @ Sep 5 2008, 23:47)
I installed a nightly, but it removed all settings and bookmarks. Why does it do this, and is there any way to stop it from doing that?
It doesn't remove your settings and bookmarks, the Chromium and the Chrome just use different profile folders.
Quote - (tom01 @ Sep 5 2008, 20:24)
Atleast you don't have to install them I'm not installing it till they remove that awfull updater.
I'm not installing it till they remove that awfull updater.What's so "awful" about an updater?
But anyways, Chromium builds do not have, and do not use, an updater.
Oh, and Google did mean it when they said the updater would delete itself when all Google software is gone. The updater in Local Settings\Application Data\Google is gone.
edit: in these recent builds, the source code viewer is broken.
I like these nightly builds. 
Thanks
Thanks
The latest nightly seems quite a bit faster in Sunspider 
Somehow Chrome's result URL is broken, so results are here:
For 1819:
And for Opera 9.6 build 10421:
For 1819:
CODE
============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 1145.2ms +/- 1.8%
--------------------------------------------
3d: 79.4ms +/- 2.4%
cube: 21.0ms +/- 11.8%
morph: 34.0ms +/- 4.5%
raytrace: 24.4ms +/- 2.8%
access: 59.4ms +/- 4.6%
binary-trees: 4.0ms +/- 0.0%
fannkuch: 20.4ms +/- 3.3%
nbody: 22.0ms +/- 11.3%
nsieve: 13.0ms +/- 6.8%
bitops: 44.2ms +/- 5.8%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 3.6ms +/- 18.9%
bits-in-byte: 7.6ms +/- 9.0%
bitwise-and: 13.0ms +/- 0.0%
nsieve-bits: 20.0ms +/- 12.4%
controlflow: 2.6ms +/- 26.2%
recursive: 2.6ms +/- 26.2%
crypto: 37.8ms +/- 2.8%
aes: 13.8ms +/- 11.7%
md5: 12.4ms +/- 5.5%
sha1: 11.6ms +/- 5.9%
date: 298.8ms +/- 2.4%
format-tofte: 152.4ms +/- 2.5%
format-xparb: 146.4ms +/- 2.7%
math: 74.2ms +/- 4.6%
cordic: 40.0ms +/- 6.2%
partial-sums: 25.4ms +/- 15.3%
spectral-norm: 8.8ms +/- 6.3%
regexp: 212.8ms +/- 1.2%
dna: 212.8ms +/- 1.2%
string: 336.0ms +/- 5.8%
base64: 43.6ms +/- 5.9%
fasta: 37.0ms +/- 0.0%
tagcloud: 97.0ms +/- 18.9%
unpack-code: 110.2ms +/- 2.7%
validate-input: 48.2ms +/- 2.2%
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 1145.2ms +/- 1.8%
--------------------------------------------
3d: 79.4ms +/- 2.4%
cube: 21.0ms +/- 11.8%
morph: 34.0ms +/- 4.5%
raytrace: 24.4ms +/- 2.8%
access: 59.4ms +/- 4.6%
binary-trees: 4.0ms +/- 0.0%
fannkuch: 20.4ms +/- 3.3%
nbody: 22.0ms +/- 11.3%
nsieve: 13.0ms +/- 6.8%
bitops: 44.2ms +/- 5.8%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 3.6ms +/- 18.9%
bits-in-byte: 7.6ms +/- 9.0%
bitwise-and: 13.0ms +/- 0.0%
nsieve-bits: 20.0ms +/- 12.4%
controlflow: 2.6ms +/- 26.2%
recursive: 2.6ms +/- 26.2%
crypto: 37.8ms +/- 2.8%
aes: 13.8ms +/- 11.7%
md5: 12.4ms +/- 5.5%
sha1: 11.6ms +/- 5.9%
date: 298.8ms +/- 2.4%
format-tofte: 152.4ms +/- 2.5%
format-xparb: 146.4ms +/- 2.7%
math: 74.2ms +/- 4.6%
cordic: 40.0ms +/- 6.2%
partial-sums: 25.4ms +/- 15.3%
spectral-norm: 8.8ms +/- 6.3%
regexp: 212.8ms +/- 1.2%
dna: 212.8ms +/- 1.2%
string: 336.0ms +/- 5.8%
base64: 43.6ms +/- 5.9%
fasta: 37.0ms +/- 0.0%
tagcloud: 97.0ms +/- 18.9%
unpack-code: 110.2ms +/- 2.7%
validate-input: 48.2ms +/- 2.2%
And for Opera 9.6 build 10421:
CODE
============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 3185.4ms +/- 0.9%
--------------------------------------------
3d: 301.8ms +/- 1.6%
cube: 95.4ms +/- 2.0%
morph: 98.4ms +/- 5.6%
raytrace: 108.0ms +/- 1.4%
access: 456.2ms +/- 1.2%
binary-trees: 32.4ms +/- 3.4%
fannkuch: 245.4ms +/- 1.1%
nbody: 120.8ms +/- 1.3%
nsieve: 57.6ms +/- 5.8%
bitops: 366.8ms +/- 1.3%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 41.4ms +/- 1.6%
bits-in-byte: 87.6ms +/- 2.2%
bitwise-and: 163.6ms +/- 2.1%
nsieve-bits: 74.2ms +/- 2.2%
controlflow: 38.2ms +/- 2.7%
recursive: 38.2ms +/- 2.7%
crypto: 179.8ms +/- 1.3%
aes: 86.6ms +/- 1.3%
md5: 44.6ms +/- 4.2%
sha1: 48.6ms +/- 2.3%
date: 538.2ms +/- 0.3%
format-tofte: 176.8ms +/- 1.5%
format-xparb: 361.4ms +/- 0.8%
math: 236.6ms +/- 0.7%
cordic: 108.0ms +/- 1.2%
partial-sums: 78.8ms +/- 1.3%
spectral-norm: 49.8ms +/- 1.1%
regexp: 312.8ms +/- 1.5%
dna: 312.8ms +/- 1.5%
string: 755.0ms +/- 3.3%
base64: 74.8ms +/- 5.8%
fasta: 150.2ms +/- 5.2%
tagcloud: 149.8ms +/- 3.4%
unpack-code: 298.6ms +/- 3.5%
validate-input: 81.6ms +/- 2.8%
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 3185.4ms +/- 0.9%
--------------------------------------------
3d: 301.8ms +/- 1.6%
cube: 95.4ms +/- 2.0%
morph: 98.4ms +/- 5.6%
raytrace: 108.0ms +/- 1.4%
access: 456.2ms +/- 1.2%
binary-trees: 32.4ms +/- 3.4%
fannkuch: 245.4ms +/- 1.1%
nbody: 120.8ms +/- 1.3%
nsieve: 57.6ms +/- 5.8%
bitops: 366.8ms +/- 1.3%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 41.4ms +/- 1.6%
bits-in-byte: 87.6ms +/- 2.2%
bitwise-and: 163.6ms +/- 2.1%
nsieve-bits: 74.2ms +/- 2.2%
controlflow: 38.2ms +/- 2.7%
recursive: 38.2ms +/- 2.7%
crypto: 179.8ms +/- 1.3%
aes: 86.6ms +/- 1.3%
md5: 44.6ms +/- 4.2%
sha1: 48.6ms +/- 2.3%
date: 538.2ms +/- 0.3%
format-tofte: 176.8ms +/- 1.5%
format-xparb: 361.4ms +/- 0.8%
math: 236.6ms +/- 0.7%
cordic: 108.0ms +/- 1.2%
partial-sums: 78.8ms +/- 1.3%
spectral-norm: 49.8ms +/- 1.1%
regexp: 312.8ms +/- 1.5%
dna: 312.8ms +/- 1.5%
string: 755.0ms +/- 3.3%
base64: 74.8ms +/- 5.8%
fasta: 150.2ms +/- 5.2%
tagcloud: 149.8ms +/- 3.4%
unpack-code: 298.6ms +/- 3.5%
validate-input: 81.6ms +/- 2.8%
I really dont care about % thing. i dont give a F with these % stuff nothing big different to me anyway
Quote - (rm20010 @ Sep 6 2008, 06:50)
What's so "awful" about an updater?
What other browser do you know that uses a process at boot to update? No need at all.
Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the updater process running all the time. And when I uninstalled chrome on my laptop the updater was NOT removed and was still starting at boot even though it was unchecked in msconfig, I had to remove it and it's registry entries manually.
Quote - "tom01"
Am I the only one who doesn't like the process per tab?
Change it then
http://www.chrome-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=39
Quote - (ViperAFK @ Sep 6 2008, 13:11)
Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the updater process running all the time. And when I uninstalled chrome on my laptop the updater was NOT removed and was still starting at boot even though it was unchecked in msconfig, I had to remove it and it's registry entries manually.
Yeah, on my Vista desktop it wouldn't remove properly. The updater also pegged itself to 75% doing... something. (This is on a quad core system BTW.) On my XP laptop, it removed itself.
Click to view attachment
The tabs painted themselves too far to the right. Oops.
Another oddity: the file opener box is Vista styled, but the download box is the 2000/XP style.
The tabs painted themselves too far to the right. Oops.
Another oddity: the file opener box is Vista styled, but the download box is the 2000/XP style.
Quote - (supernova_00 @ Sep 7 2008, 01:17)
Change it then http://www.chrome-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=39
http://www.chrome-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=39wow that works great. now I guess we need some tests on the different process models
How do I delete the nightly build guys?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.