Latest Chrome 5 beta is 35% faster, sports new HTML5 features

Google today pumped out a new beta of their Chrome browser that packs in quite a few enhancements for users to test. The Chrome team claims that in addition to 30-35% faster performance in the V8 and SunSpider javascript benchmarks, the beta sports several new HTML5 additions and an integrated Flash Player that auto-updates. 

Chrome initially shipped with its speedy V8 javascript engine that fiercely ignited the browser javascript engine wars. The team has outlined how the engine has improved by as much as 305% since the first beta was released.

In addition to the speed improvements, many new features have been added to today's beta release. After adding bookmark syncing in November 2009, Chrome now has the ability to sync browser preferences such as themes, homepage/startup settings, web content settings, and languages. Chrome extensions have also been enabled for use when in Chrome's private browsing mode: incognito mode

In addition to the integrated Flash Player which can now automatically update using Chrome's auto-update system, users should also welcome the addition of several new HTML5 features in the beta:

The new Chrome beta is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux

The Chrome team also released a sneak peak at some new browser speed tests that they'll be unveiling soon.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

US Treasury websites hacked

Next Story

Google launching digital book store

87 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I use firefox because it's easy to use, I like a big chunky bit at the top, because it's easy to use you can put a lot of information up there. The tabs are at the bottom, tabs at the top makes no sense.

It's easy to customize, I even make my own designs, put it on firefox and spread it around. I bet a lot of you's who think firefox is overrated haven't used half of it's features.

typical Google! you can't just have numbers and graphs. they have to mess around and do something to give their staff something to do, as ads rack in the profits. don't get me wrong, it sounds like a ton of fun. Now I'm off to work on my skate board!

sure, it's blazing fast! BUT, it has not gotten over some serious bugs. I had deleted all browsing data and then after restarting chrome was unable to browse at any site as if there was no internet connection available.

One of the fastest at developing flaws, bugs and various security issues too!

Use SRWare Iron, if you want soemthing that doesn't phone home all the time and stuff and equally as fast.
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

Description
Some vulnerabilities have been reported in Google Chrome, which can be exploited by malicious people to bypass certain security restrictions and potentially compromise a user's system.

1) An unspecified error can be exploited to bypass the same origin policy of the Google URL (GURL).

2) An unspecified error within the HTML5 Media handling can be exploited to cause a memory corruption.

3) An unspecified error within the font handling can be exploited to cause a memory corruption.


Solution
Update to version 4.1.249.1064.


Provided and/or discovered by
The vendor credits:
1) Jordi Chancel
2) David Bloom, Google Security Team
3) wushi, team509

Changelog
Further details available in Customer Area

Original Advisory
http://googlechromereleases.bl...bug-and-security-fixes.html

Instead of making browsers faster how about making them more secure and bug free as possible. I am not bothered how fast a web page displays.

Wow, yet you still have to install an extension just to access your bookmarks from a drop menu instead of mandating the use of an extra toolbar.


I mean, seriously, aren't we all gradually switching to wide screen displays? What retard thought it was a brilliant idea to take up whole blocks of vertical space for really small features?

One question I got is the webpages they visited were already cached in the history or they used a new computer each time. It invalidates the speed tests if they used the same computer for each test.

But can it run Cr-

[/offtopic]

I think it'd be more accurate if they tested speed in general, rather then tests they prepared it for specifically. And the version numbers go up too fast.

omnicoder said,
But can it run Cr-

[/offtopic]

I think it'd be more accurate if they tested speed in general, rather then tests they prepared it for specifically. And the version numbers go up too fast.

Who truly cares about the version number? What difference does it make if they call it Chrome 3 over Chrome 5? Seriously, I do not see why people think the version number is something that needs complaining about.

DarkNovaGamer said,

Who truly cares about the version number? What difference does it make if they call it Chrome 3 over Chrome 5? Seriously, I do not see why people think the version number is something that needs complaining about.

I can agree that it's a little sketchy to up the version number so rapidly. It gives the impression that they're just trying to quickly create the illusion of 'history'. After all, IE is at 8 (soon 9), Opera is at 10, and Firefox is widely used despite being much more reserved about jumping version numbers, so it's like an easy 'cheat' in a sense to at the very least one-up Fx by having a higher version number.


N00bs are pretty simple-minded like that, after all. "I don't know which to use!!!" "Well my friends use that Firefox one, but this Google one is like two versions ahead of it..."

DarkNovaGamer said,

Who truly cares about the version number? What difference does it make if they call it Chrome 3 over Chrome 5? Seriously, I do not see why people think the version number is something that needs complaining about.

I don't really care what they call or number it. I just want to know what i have and when they make changes I would like to know what ones they are in.

Joshie said,

I can agree that it's a little sketchy to up the version number so rapidly. It gives the impression that they're just trying to quickly create the illusion of 'history'. After all, IE is at 8 (soon 9), Opera is at 10, and Firefox is widely used despite being much more reserved about jumping version numbers, so it's like an easy 'cheat' in a sense to at the very least one-up Fx by having a higher version number.


N00bs are pretty simple-minded like that, after all. "I don't know which to use!!!" "Well my friends use that Firefox one, but this Google one is like two versions ahead of it..."

Each browser has their own way of numbering each version. Sure some are simple minded but in my experience, people tend to actually Google browser names to see 'opinions' about it (obviously not everyone does that).

DarkNovaGamer said,

Each browser has their own way of numbering each version. Sure some are simple minded but in my experience, people tend to actually Google browser names to see 'opinions' about it (obviously not everyone does that).

Certainly not anyone faced with a ballot screen, lol.

Udedenkz said,
I presume still no D2D?

According to Google it will take some time to adapt their sandboxed renderer to make use of D2D.

I can't believe I don't see anywhere the build number. How the hell do I know if I have the latest or not?!?!?

TDT said,
I can't believe I don't see anywhere the build number. How the hell do I know if I have the latest or not?!?!?

It should be 5.0.375.29 this is the latest release.

TDT said,
I can't believe I don't see anywhere the build number. How the hell do I know if I have the latest or not?!?!?

I was wondering the same thing.

Its kinda odd they would not tell us the build number.

TDT said,
I can't believe I don't see anywhere the build number. How the hell do I know if I have the latest or not?!?!?

If you click on about in the menu, and Google tells you you're updated, you're updated!

If it tells you that you were upgraded, you were just upgraded!

Edited by Northgrove, May 5 2010, 7:35am :

Typo - [Quote]The team has outlined how the engine has improved by as much as 305% since the first beta was released.[/Quote]

I wish Chrome was 305% faster!!

ceminess said,
Typo -

I wish Chrome was 305% faster!!


305% faster than the first beta released in 2008. Look at the first graph.

I'm noticing some speed increase. Nice! The new features are nice, I specially like editing my browsing history, but for the most part the new features aren't "killer" new features.

Love the internal Flash! I think that's my favorite new feature. It's using Flash 10.1 RC 2? I was using that version of Flash before and didn't have any problems.

Excuse me, but NEITHER this article or the source article it lifts copy from provided this Beginner's 101 Journalism information. That was my point.

excalpius said,
Excuse me, but NEITHER this article or the source article it lifts copy from provided this Beginner's 101 Journalism information. That was my point.

So, now that you have the build number, how are you using it? ... This is minor information, not useful to most. That it's a new beta release is enough for everyone but developers.

Why when people try defending Chrome the best they have is "it's not all about speed."
Well this is pretty contradictory isn't it. lol.

Instead of doing experiments, just test it vs Opera.
Not so fast then

Purify said,
Instead of doing experiments, just test it vs Opera.
Not so fast then
I have, and it's much faster than opera in some pcs I've tried it on.

Wow...I was just thinking the same thing. If Adblock Plus would work like it works in Firefox, I would switch to Chrome right away...

VolksDude said,
Wow...I was just thinking the same thing. If Adblock Plus would work like it works in Firefox, I would switch to Chrome right away...

+1! Definitely!!

WICKO said,
Does this update allow proper support for addons like NoScript and Adblock Plus?

This is what I want to know too, Chrome is useless for me mainly because it gets really slow with AdBlock Plus installed, it brings my netbook to its knees...

Hungarian Salami said,

This is what I want to know too, Chrome is useless for me mainly because it gets really slow with AdBlock Plus installed, it brings my netbook to its knees...

The problem is the adblock extension for chrome doesn't do what the Firefox one does. It doesn't actually block the ads from downloading, but just from showing (and yeah, performance drops). Once they have the proper API implemented then it will be a non-issue.

Once this gets done, I'll gladly use Chrome. I like FF but Chrome is definitely faster. Right now though, chrome uses a lot more memory than FF with Adblock plus installed.

WICKO said,
Does this update allow proper support for addons like NoScript and Adblock Plus?

Blocking ads is the last thing google wants you to be able to do

WICKO said,
Does this update allow proper support for addons like NoScript and Adblock Plus?

NoScript is build-in in Options

WICKO said,
Does this update allow proper support for addons like NoScript and Adblock Plus?

With "proper support", I assume you mean support for addons to hook into the network traffic? No, that's planned for Google Chrome 6.


However... I now use the new content filtering settings supported already in this build, to block Flash on non-whitelisted domains, and blacklisting Javascript. (whitelisting js is supported too, but way to much of a hassle to me due to massive site breakage)

Edited by Northgrove, May 5 2010, 7:30am :

Northgrove said,

With "proper support", I assume you mean support for addons to hook into the network traffic? No, that's planned for Google Chrome 6.


However... I now use the new content filtering settings supported already in this build, to block Flash on non-whitelisted domains, and blacklisting Javascript. (whitelisting js is supported too, but way to much of a hassle to me due to massive site breakage)

Thanks, yes that was what I was referring to, I just couldn't remember what the reason was.

I didn't know filtering settings existed, I'll check it out. I don't mind whitelisting js, that's how I have it set up on NoScript for FF, except I tell it to automatically allow base domains by default. Probably not quite as secure, but the sites I visit are rarely questionable.

@warwagon

Surprisingly, it isn't. The author of NoScript has mentioned a few times that Google would very much like his addon for chrome (probably under the assumption that a lot of people would switch to chrome if it had his addon, which is true for me).

As for Adblock Plus, well, I haven't heard much about that but I don't think Google would mind that either. Although possibly less so.

Edited by WICKO, May 5 2010, 10:48pm :

Shadrack said,
Looks cool, but I see no reason to beta test for Google. I'll wait for the final before I update.

That makes no sense. Gmail was in beta forever but was perfectly adequate to use. Many google products in beta are fine to use.

HawkMan said,
I'd be more interested in speed improvements in tests chrome isn't specifically coded to be fast in.
Still the fastest browser for me in Peacekeeper.

Edited by Elliott, May 4 2010, 10:44pm :

HawkMan said,
I'd be more interested in speed improvements in tests chrome isn't specifically coded to be fast in.

Peacekeeper shows Chrome 5.0.375.29 leading over Opera 10.53 on Windows, and I guess that's the only competitor at this level? On Mac, I think Opera is even further behind.

Chrome: http://img153.imageshack.us/i/immagine3h.png/
Opera: http://img442.imageshack.us/i/immagine4w.png/

(the tests were ran by the same guy/system in another forum, as can be verified by the CPU/GPU info there)

Edited by Northgrove, May 5 2010, 7:34am :

Google please add "match case" and "whole word only" to "Find on this page" by V5 stable release.