Google releases Chrome 10

Google has released a new version of its Chrome web browser, removing support for H.264 and adding in a 66% faster JavaScript engine. This version 10 release comes only seven weeks after version nine, maybe we will see Chrome 24 by 2012.

The major change is in the Chrome Options screen which has been revamped and will now, according to the official blog, "help you get to the right settings quickly so you don’t have to dig endlessly to find a way to import your bookmarks or change your browser’s homepage." Instead of using the traditional menus, users are now able to type the setting option into the address bar instead.

This release also features the new Crankshaft JavaScript engine which was included with the recent beta. "Even your most complex web apps will run more quickly and responsively," the blog continues to say.

Users who switch between work and home should now find it easier to keep configuration consistent and tidy using the new synchronisation tool to keep on top of bookmarks, extensions, passwords and settings. This is an easy to use option with just a simple sign in with your Google account or by creating a new one.

The removal of the H.264 codec may not come as a surprise to many as Google said they would cut it out earlier this year due to a patent issue with a group of companies including Microsoft. For HTML5 content the browser still has support for Theora and WebM codecs, both of which are open source.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New EU laws change cookie permissions, protects users

Next Story

iTunes 10.2.1 out now; iOS 4.3 due tomorrow?

93 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Nice to see the GPU acceleration and dynamic rendering a bit faster, although far from stable.

However it is able to hit about 1/5 the speed of IE9 now on a lot of HTML5/CSS3 graphical testing - which is a a big jump from 1/100 and 1//500th the speed that we were seeing in previous versions on demanding dynamic graphical content.

I don't care for Chrome, because I don't like Google's advertising angle, but hopefully the graphical speed improvements will find a way back to Webkit and other browsers will now realize how important layout and rendering performance is and start to catch up to IE9 too.

When I want to test something works for the average Joe I use IE8. When I want to run Firebug or do some complex stuff for which I require an addon I start FF (which I used for 3 years back in the day). But reality is, 99% of the time all I really want is just a a very fast browsing experience and little else (apart from downloading a file). And that's how I ended up with Chrome, and that's why I love it. Fanboy? Maybe. Happy user? Definitely.

According to the voiceover in that video, Chrome's new settings interface, let's me configure Chrome
the way I like it on my computer. Really? So ... where's the Customise Toolbar settings? Where's the setting to add the Menu bar? Where's the setting to move the tabs bar below the Location Bar. Where's the option to make Chrome not look like a browser designed for an internet kiosk?

Essentially, Chrome is still as over-simplified and as dumbed down as it ever was.

1./ Are Aero buttons properly placed? Or they need another million+ duplicate bugs on this matter..
2./ Did they finally fixed "Other Bookmarks" issue, which were not possible to delete?
3./ Has that stupid universal adress bar finally drop down button?
4./ It is installed properly to "C:\Program Files\" or they are still using some custom folder burried deep into users home folder?

6205 said,
1./ Are Aero buttons properly placed? Or they need another million+ duplicate bugs on this matter..
2./ Did they finally fixed "Other Bookmarks" issue, which were not possible to delete?
3./ Has that stupid universal adress bar finally drop down button?
4./ It is installed properly to "C:\Program Files\" or they are still using some custom folder burried deep into users home folder?

i hate the fact that Chrome installs without beeing able to change folders or w/e. It just starts the setup, installs and tells you its done.
besides that it tells you its done, it uses the same 'lowsy' way as allot of malware use.
glad i stopped using google apps on my own system, hope they someday release apps that dont act like they are malware and datamining everything you do on a system.

these article header images has to stop.
get it done by a designer, or don't do it at all. Amateur versions are not appreciated on one of my favorite tech-news sites.

Is there a way to browse settings in the normal manner also?

When I start using a new browser I tend to look around the options to see if there's anything that interests me that previous browsers didn't support.

h264 seems to be the standard as others have said as it's basically got hardware acceleration in most fairly modern graphics card.

why would Chrome remove it? (not that it matters to me to much since i basically don't use Chrome much but still )

ThaCrip said,
h264 seems to be the standard as others have said as it's basically got hardware acceleration in most fairly modern graphics card.

why would Chrome remove it? (not that it matters to me to much since i basically don't use Chrome much but still )

I think h264 will become the standard and eventually Google will have no choice but to come crawling back to it.

Skyfrog said,
I think h264 will become the standard and eventually Google will have no choice but to come crawling back to it.

H.264 is a standard but one unsuitable for being a web standard. Web standards *explicitly* require that they can be implemented and distributed freely. Imagine if you had to pay license cost to use HTML or CSS.

Google is full of crap, they aren't doing this as some white knight gesture to protect us all from royalty fees. They're doing it because they want to push their format instead. I wouldn't use Chrome anyway, Google is as shady a company as they come.

Edited by Bonfire, Mar 9 2011, 8:36am :

TRC said,
Google is full of crap, they aren't doing this as some white knight gesture to protect us all from royalty fees. They're doing it because they want to push their format instead. I wouldn't use Chrome anyway, Google is as shady a company as they come.

+1

Erunno said,

H.264 is a standard but one unsuitable for being a web standard. Web standards *explicitly* require that they can be implemented and distributed freely. Imagine if you had to pay license cost to use HTML or CSS.


thank god Microsoft pays that license for us windows users
iirc Apple comes default with the codec aswell. (or will in future macOS releases) not sure which.
so whats the problem? 99% of computer users in the world are covered.

dont cry for the last 1-2% of users running linux that doesnt come with this codec installed.

TRC said,
They're doing it because they want to push their format instead.
Given that it's an open, royalty free standard ... what would be the point?

I remember using Chrome 4 for the first time back in January 2010. I'm glad they've made Chrome even speedier and I'm loving the new settings interface.

Cool! Now that Microsoft has figured out how to become standard compliant, Google steps out of line! Webmasters: Let's start ripping on Google now!

brent3000 said,
wow Version 10 already?

Chrome has out versioned IE and FF

Just goes to show why version numbers mean nothing.

brent3000 said,
wow Version 10 already?
Chrome has out versioned IE and FF

Yeah, obviously Google and such release rubbish products that need a new version every other month. And people still think Google / Android and Gmail are cool?
This, coming from an Android user (HTC make my phone look pretty). If I had the choice of two more or less identical UI's, then I would go with Microsoft over Android.

Mr Spoon said,

Yeah, obviously Google and such release rubbish products that need a new version every other month. And people still think Google / Android and Gmail are cool?
This, coming from an Android user (HTC make my phone look pretty). If I had the choice of two more or less identical UI's, then I would go with Microsoft over Android.
Such hatred for Google, Gmail, and Android. Yet you have an Android phone? Oh the irony...

Still Opera 11 for me, long since I left Chrome, they have become more retro-fashioned lately by dropping support for H.264 as a video standard for HTML5 is a step backwards, just when we thought the industry was settling down.

There is no need to adjust disk cache when RAM cache is faster. However, it would be nice to have some kind of flag or option to adjust that too.

I'm assuming Chrome routes all browser traffic through Google Search somehow, therefore optimizing network throughput for you (hence the speed). With IE, you have to adjust maximum connection parameters yourself. With Firefox, you have to adjust maximum connections and enabling Pipelining yourself (Opera has them pre-configured by default).

I could be talking out of my ass, but there's only so much you can do with Javascript (especially with HTML5 on the horizon).

meh. It still cannot display some website menus properly. Until they can get those things sorted out I will be stickign to IE 9.

Deihmos said,
meh. It still cannot display some website menus properly. Until they can get those things sorted out I will be stickign to IE 9.
Example like what websites?

tanjiajun_34 said,
Example like what websites?

Chrome's javascript has been broken for ages. Several websites i used to visit when using chrome, had broken javascript which worked perfectly fine in IE/FF.

But i think it has more to do with Webkit, as Safari and Maxthon are both crappy using the webkit engine, even worse then Chrome.
Gecko and Trident are far superior to lowsy broken Webkit.

Shadowzz said,

Chrome's javascript has been broken for ages. Several websites i used to visit when using chrome, had broken javascript which worked perfectly fine in IE/FF.

But i think it has more to do with Webkit, as Safari and Maxthon are both crappy using the webkit engine, even worse then Chrome.
Gecko and Trident are far superior to lowsy broken Webkit.

Actually Gecko is very good at mimicking IE broken behaviors. The sites you are talking about probably were designed back in the IE 6-7 era when web-designers had to add a lot of crazy artifacts to achieve a decent layout on IE (who never had to use iframes to hide select/dropdowns controls behind a floating element - this was really common in menus, which started this discussion).
If you ever had to write html for an website you'd know who easy it is to make it looks exactly the same on everything but IE. IE 9 is taking a step in the right direction embracing html 5 and stuff, but this doesn't mean they will support all html 5, take a look at http://html5test.com/ and see for yourself.

Deihmos said,
meh. It still cannot display some website menus properly. Until they can get those things sorted out I will be stickign to IE 9.

It seems to have broke google maps for me. When I click and drag on the map, it doesn't capture my mouse up and stop dragging.

alessandroasm said,

Actually Gecko is very good at mimicking IE broken behaviors. The sites you are talking about probably were designed back in the IE 6-7 era when web-designers had to add a lot of crazy artifacts to achieve a decent layout on IE (who never had to use iframes to hide select/dropdowns controls behind a floating element - this was really common in menus, which started this discussion).
If you ever had to write html for an website you'd know who easy it is to make it looks exactly the same on everything but IE. IE 9 is taking a step in the right direction embracing html 5 and stuff, but this doesn't mean they will support all html 5, take a look at http://html5test.com/ and see for yourself.


those sites arent designed in IE6-7 days. its Javascript btw which messes up, not HTML/CSS.
And i do develop websites, never really had troubles using 1 CSS to work in Trident, Webkit and Gecko, must be lowsy developers who have to use tricks and whatnot to make it 'work' for IE.

besides, Chrome should ignore Trident/Gecko specific HTML/CSS, just as Gecko ignores IE 'fixes' and IE ignores the -moz CSS.
back to marquize/blink era (or w/e u spell marquize like, havent used it in years)

oh and if your a webdev, you should know IE8 listens (partially) to <!DOCTYPE /> which fixes ALLOT of issues people have if you use DOCTYPE properly.

Does it really not occur to you that Chrome's JS interpretation is correct, and the JS you point to is actually malformed (or deprecated) - but due to IE and Fx's age, they have more 'fallback' support?

Kirkburn said,
Does it really not occur to you that Chrome's JS interpretation is correct, and the JS you point to is actually malformed (or deprecated) - but due to IE and Fx's age, they have more 'fallback' support?

If it works in FF and IE, how come Chrome is the one that is 'correct'?
i've NEVER had javascript issues that occured in both FF and IE, i barely ever get javascript issues at all on FF or IE.
Used Chrome for a couple of months, and the issues annoyed the hell out of me (especially since 2 of those websites i frequently visit).
But this might've been fixed in current release, just for the sake of it, even tho i dont want any of google's malware on my system, ill check is some of these issues have been resolved or not.

and Google aint god. Its not like Chrome works perfectly.

Maxthon has same issues btw, which uses webkit and (perhaps outdated) V8.

EDIT:
Hmm actually they seem to work better now, the javascript on the sites hasnt changed, but Chrome 10 works fine with it (8/9 didnt).
Kudo's to chrome for improving their javascript engine. Still dislike the automated install with no user input available. Ah well.

Edited by ShadowMajestic, Mar 10 2011, 1:01pm :

It would have been awesome if on the show flashforward if in the pilot they were using version 10 and then in their vision of 6 months later they were using version 15.

"..so Chrome is configured just the way you like it.."

How so when it lacks options for cache size?
(Though there the geeky, inaccurate command line switch for it.)

iron2000 said,
"..so Chrome is configured just the way you like it.."

How so when it lacks options for cache size?
(Though there the geeky, inaccurate command line switch for it.)

most of the website disable cache anyway
are you still on 56k?

Omen1393 said,
Interesting, Chrome 10 removes instant support for Bing and Yahoo, before you could use it even with Bing.

Google has seen bing is slowly catching up.

Omen1393 said,
Interesting, Chrome 10 removes instant support for Bing and Yahoo, before you could use it even with Bing.
It is better to remove it because Bing and Yahoo is not build for it. It might have those anti spam things giving problems.

So Google wants to be tight by removing a codec that Microsoft, Apple and the majority of other IT organisations have added resourses to so it can be supported. And they have replaced it with an inferior codec..
You get what you pay for. Cheap video = Bad video.
I thought Google represented standards, H.264 was the agreed standard for HTLM5. So why is Google doing what Microsoft was blamed for in the old days, using conflicting standards that creates internet fragmentation.
I am starting to feel more and more that Microsoft is the old Google and Google has lost it's so called "don't be evil" philosophy.

DukeWars said,
So Google wants to be tight by removing a codec that Microsoft, Apple and the majority of other IT organisations have added resourses to so it can be supported. And they have replaced it with an inferior codec..
You get what you pay for. Cheap video = Bad video.
I thought Google represented standards, H.264 was the agreed standard for HTLM5. So why is Google doing what Microsoft was blamed for in the old days, using conflicting standards that creates internet fragmentation.
I am starting to feel more and more that Microsoft is the old Google and Google has lost it's so called "don't be evil" philosophy.

HTML5 is not the agreed upon standard of web video, however it is the de facto standard. It's going to take a lot more than "it's open" to convince publishers to support something else besides H.264 which already has hardware acceleration in mobile and embedded products.

dagamer34 said,
HTML5 is not the agreed upon standard of web video, however it is the de facto standard.

ActiveX was also a de facto standard until Mozilla ended this with their refusal to include it in Firefox (which was technically posible). De facto standards are ok as long you belong to the group profiting from it, eh?

Erunno said,

ActiveX was also a de facto standard until Mozilla ended this with their refusal to include it in Firefox (which was technically posible). De facto standards are ok as long you belong to the group profiting from it, eh?

Seriously, an incorrect ActiveX rant?

Asf ro 'de facto' standards, since Google 'owns' VP8, and WebM, and even though it is Open, just like Android, Google has FULL and FINAL say in VP8 and WebM.

If you are looking at someone that is wanting to 'corner' the industry with their 'OWN' standard, you need to look a bit harder at Google.

Open is does not mean you have a say in how it works, what it does, or what crap Google slaps in it...

bb10 said,

It is not.

he worded it wrong, H.264 was the agreed standard video codec for HTML5.
at least by W3C partners.

Google is just beeing a little kid in the IT market.

DukeWars said,
So Google wants to be tight by removing a codec that Microsoft, Apple and the majority of other IT organisations have added resourses to so it can be supported. And they have replaced it with an inferior codec..
You get what you pay for. Cheap video = Bad video.
I thought Google represented standards, H.264 was the agreed standard for HTLM5. So why is Google doing what Microsoft was blamed for in the old days, using conflicting standards that creates internet fragmentation.
I am starting to feel more and more that Microsoft is the old Google and Google has lost it's so called "don't be evil" philosophy.

You know the good old saying. The us patent office should make high traffic inventions public domain for the sake off all so it can be freely used. Stuff like sound and video codecs. This way it can't be used as a mob way of business.

And yet everyone seemed to miss the article saying that Google was removing H.264 "due to a patent issue with a group of companies including Microsoft". It doesn't have anything to do with Google enforcing one codec over another. Sounds to me like they're looking to avoid a legal battle.

Tim Dawg said,
And yet everyone seemed to miss the article saying that Google was removing H.264 "due to a patent issue with a group of companies including Microsoft". It doesn't have anything to do with Google enforcing one codec over another. Sounds to me like they're looking to avoid a legal battle.

Avoiding what legal battle? Other browser have no problems supporting it, why would Google?

Shadowzz said,
k fine, Windows browsers have no problem supporting it.
Not really the strongest argument in the world (especially since they need plugins). Why should Linux be excluded from what is intended to be a core web technology?

lexp said,
Brain-teaser #2011: find the difference between Chrome 9 and Chrome 10.
+1 there is none! just a shallow release that claims even faster javascript

lexp said,
Brain-teaser #2011: find the difference between Chrome 9 and Chrome 10.

It should have a fart sound each time it opens. Just for laughs. That would be a difference no one would miss.

Don't tell me they did this with the Mac version as well? Got to love Google's interface design motto:

"Let's throw all consistency out the window and do whatever the hell we want by adding non-standard interface elements and APIs everywhere!"

.Neo said,
Don't tell me they did this with the Mac version as well? Got to love Google's interface design motto:

"Let's throw all consistency out the window and do whatever the hell we want by adding non-standard interface elements and APIs everywhere!"

Google lives in their own little world. Kinda like a neglected kid wanting attention.

Frylock86 said,
Google lives in their own little world. Kinda like a neglected kid wanting attention.

Actually the exact same thing applies to Firefox and Opera. Safari is pretty much the only popular browser that uses a truly native interface and APIs on Mac OS X.

.Neo said,

Actually the exact same thing applies to Firefox and Opera. Safari is pretty much the only popular browser that uses a truly native interface and APIs on Mac OS X.

Meanwhile Safari has a non-native experience on Windows. So it's sort of the same thing but coming from the other side.

.Neo said,
Don't tell me they did this with the Mac version as well? Got to love Google's interface design motto:

"Let's throw all consistency out the window and do whatever the hell we want by adding non-standard interface elements and APIs everywhere!"


Good. Glad they do. A UI that consistently the same for every thing is just boring.

SharpGreen said,

Good. Glad they do. A UI that consistently the same for every thing is just boring.

Yeah, who cares about usability. Everyone should have to learn a new UI for every single program they have.

/facepalm

.Neo said,
Don't tell me they did this with the Mac version as well? Got to love Google's interface design motto:

"Let's throw all consistency out the window and do whatever the hell we want by adding non-standard interface elements and APIs everywhere!"

Well at least Google has a good browser UI design and its performance is equally good. I don't see any other browser doing both well at the same time. More work gets done in Chrome with less number of clicks for almost everything.

.Neo said,
Don't tell me they did this with the Mac version as well? Got to love Google's interface design motto:

"Let's throw all consistency out the window and do whatever the hell we want by adding non-standard interface elements and APIs everywhere!"

I thought hipsters preferred if things weren't so mainstream.

PyX said,

As well as Internet Explorer...

When IE ran on Mac, it was very much a Mac application, just like Office for Mac if very much a Mac application and does not force Windows concepts on Mac users.

Too bad Apple doesn't give their software users the same respect.

thenetavenger said,

When IE ran on Mac, it was very much a Mac application, just like Office for Mac if very much a Mac application and does not force Windows concepts on Mac users.

Too bad Apple doesn't give their software users the same respect.


How did a thread on Google Chrome end up being about Apple being bad and Apple vs Microsoft ONCE AGAIN... It's crazy. It's like the Godwin's Law of Neowin.

Remove support for H.264, slightly faster javascript, version 9 --> 10? That's funny.

Northgrove said,

How did a thread on Google Chrome end up being about Apple being bad and Apple vs Microsoft ONCE AGAIN... It's crazy. It's like the Godwin's Law of Neowin.

Sacha said,
Meanwhile Safari has a non-native experience on Windows. So it's sort of the same thing but coming from the other side.

Windows is developed by Google now? Next to that basically no browser on Windows has a truly native experience, so to single out Safari is a bit weird.
SharpGreen said,

Good. Glad they do. A UI that consistently the same for every thing is just boring.

Yeah, having proper smooth scrolling, proper trackpad support, superior PDF support, native spell and grammar check, Dictionary integration, access to Core Animation etc. sure is boring! Using native APIs doesn't mean you can't have a unique interface.

Edited by .Neo, Mar 9 2011, 3:14pm :

thenetavenger said,

When IE ran on Mac, it was very much a Mac application, just like Office for Mac if very much a Mac application and does not force Windows concepts on Mac users.

Eh no it wasn't. It didn't use any of Mac OS X' native APIs either and it performed poorly with an extremely slow update pace. Next to that the entire Ribbon interface of Office 2011 is a Windows concept being forced on Mac users today, so what's your point? Also, this has nothing to do with this thread.

Edited by .Neo, Mar 9 2011, 3:50pm :

TRC said,

Yeah, who cares about usability. Everyone should have to learn a new UI for every single program they have.

/facepalm

Enter stage left : Nero, Norton, Avast, Power DVD .....

Sacha said,

Meanwhile Safari has a non-native experience on Windows. So it's sort of the same thing but coming from the other side.

Err... Umm... no it isn't. Have you even used Safari for Windows? It integrates quite nicely with the Windows API. Try it before you bash it.

TRC said,

Yeah, who cares about usability. Everyone should have to learn a new UI for every single program they have.

/facepalm

Yep you should also learn a new interface on each version so you don't get bored to death. Book worm!

.Neo said,

Windows is developed by Google now? Next to that basically no browser on Windows has a truly native experience, so to single out Safari is a bit weird.

Yeah, having proper smooth scrolling, proper trackpad support, superior PDF support, native spell and grammar check, Dictionary integration, access to Core Animation etc. sure is boring! Using native APIs doesn't mean you can't have a unique interface.


Reading fail. Never said anything about APIs.