main
Report a problem

Google Releases First Chrome Beta

bangbang023   on 02 September 2008 - 19:28, updated 03 September 2008 - 17:50 · 157 comments & 75931 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Google has released the very first beta of their new web browser, Google Chrome. Chrome is a browser that, for now at least, is focused on offering a full browsing experience within a minimalistic user interface. To skip past the P.R. phrasing, Google Chrome is designed to be simple to use without sacrificing any of the features required for daily web browsing.

To get a little more in depth, Google Chrome uses the same rendering engine as Apple's Safari browser, named Webkit. In recent history, the developers of Webkit have made great strides in creating what is, as of today, the fastest browser engine in terms of rendering speed. Google Chrome, currently version 0.2.149.27, seems to use a slightly older build of Webkit (version 525.13, to be precise), however, so some of the recent Webkit development gains will not have made it into the first release of the browser.

Other features of Chrome include a dynamic tab system which allows you to drag and drop tabs inside and outside of the browser window, an "incognito mode" in which the sites you visit are not added to your browsing history, and a feature similar to Opera's Speed Dial, in which you are presented with your nine most visited websites, in thumbnail form, when opening a new tab.

If you wish to give Google Chrome a try, click the download link below. It's an early beta, though, so don't expect it to be perfect.

Link: Google Chrome
Download: Google Chrome 0.2.149.27
Screenshot: View

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 157 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:33
Looks like the download page is not compatible with some browser. (It doesn't work on mine.)
Here is the direct link:
http://dl.google.com/update2/installers/ChromeSetup.exe

I also found that the installer adds a AutoUpdate application to the system startup.
I don't like to have apps load at startup and staying in memory. Removed it using msconfig.

Last edited by Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:18
#1.1 +haveblue128 on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:21
I guess the logic is we "dumb" net users will leave Firefox, or other and return to Google because it looks like those other browers? Go figure. Smart people are doing this, but their money could have been spent on improving their browser. They have reduced competetion to a game of dressing like the Jones. Sergey Brin should have his allowance cut for this lame move.
(1 reply) #2 iamthelaw on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:41
setup does nothing for me when i double click on it doh.. (vista x64 w/sp1)
#2.1 NateB1 on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:34
Right-click the setup file and choose "Run as Administrator". That worked for me.
(7 replies) #3 Ali Koubeissi on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:42
setup does nothing for me when i double click on it doh..


Same here .
#3.1 Examinus on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:49
Same here.
#3.2 raider360 on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:21
setup does nothing for me when i double click on it doh..

Same
XP SP3
#3.3 exotoxic on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:51
setup does nothing for me when i double click on it doh..


+1

XP SP3

EDIT: If you go to the webpage and click the download buton and then install from there it will work.
#3.4 Exosphere on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:02
+1 XP/SP3

That hotlink above does not work, go via Google web page as Exotoxic suggests.
#3.5 XeonBuilder on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:20
+1

Vista Business
#3.6 rm20010 on 03 Sep 2008 - 02:11
I downloaded the installer using Firefox; installer did nothing. Then I tried again with Opera and now the install is going right ahead.
#3.7 ]SK[ on 10 Jan 2009 - 07:13
I am sure this problem existed for the first version of Chrome too?
(1 reply) #4 tsupersonic on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:43
mmmm me likey. Very fast
#4.1 excalpius on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:11
Agreed, but fugly as all hell (not as bad on Vista BTW), and no adblock/ie7pro plugin or option on it yet.
(2 replies) #5 Majesticmerc on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:44
I'm trying it, and to be honest, even though it is an early Beta, I'm not impressed.

It's lightweight, very lightweight in fact, but too lightweight for my taste. There are very few options, and even fewer menus. It lacks a status bar too, which annoys the hell out of me as you don't know how much of a page has been downloaded.

I do like the tabs though, I like the idea of having them at the top.

I'll stick with my Firefox for now, Chrome is decent if you don't do much with the web, but it lacks a lot of very basic functionality.
#5.1 Sacha on 03 Sep 2008 - 12:40
The fewer menus things is good - it's like a Google trademark. The options is a bit hard to find but it's in the menu right of the address bar.

The status bar, unlike other browsers, appears only when it is needed. This may be where you are confused. When a page is loading, the status bar actually does appear. When you are loading images, it even shows a progress bar. When you are downloading files, it shows their progress with a pie and even lets you toggle whether you will open them in advance.

It really does have the same functionality, without the bloat.
#5.2 +Frazell Thomas on 03 Oct 2008 - 15:52
:| Lack of a status bar is a major deal breaker for me...

How else do you know, for certain, where a link is pointing to? That's the main point of a status bar for me as my net is too fast to wonder how long pages will take to load.
(1 reply) #6 Mr. Dee on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:46
Not impressed, torn of tabs with the ability create desktop URL shortcuts, things I can already do in IE and Firefox.
#6.1 Sacha on 03 Sep 2008 - 12:44
Desktop URL Shortcuts is not the same as in other browsers. It effectively turns the website in to an 'Application'. When you enable this shortcut, it removes all the menus and other browser remnants and leaves you with a Web Application. You just get a box with the website inside. That's the difference. This is what Google is doing. More space for content, less bloat.

Tabs being in separate processes is a new idea that IE8 is also incorporating, yes. I don't believe Firefox does this though. Google has many techniques such as these (plugins in processes) that reduce memory footprint in the long-run - these techniques do not exist in other browsers.
(5 replies) #7 Viktor on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:47
Hidden page found by me while reverse engineering: about:stats. It gives you various statistics, and the title says "Shh.. This page is secret".

// Viktor Brange.
#7.1 +Odom on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:04
You can also right-click the top of the window on the blue area and select Task manager. Gets you more info too
#7.2 +Odom on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:05
(Odom said @ #7.1)
Right-clicking the top of the window on the blue area and selecting Task manager gets you the same. Click "Stats for nerds"
#7.3 Express on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:05
Try about:hang, about:crash, about:histograms, about:network, about:plugins and just plain about:

Last edited by Express on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:17
#7.4 Viktor on 03 Sep 2008 - 14:53
(Odom said @ #7.2)
(Odom said @ #7.1)
Right-clicking the top of the window on the blue area and selecting Task manager gets you the same. Click "Stats for nerds"
No, it does not. ABOUT:MEMORY gives information about the memory. ABOUTTATS gives different timings and such. There are a couple more than the ones Express gaves us, however they're not interesting. (about:cache, about:version)

// Viktor Brange
#7.5 Esvandiary on 03 Sep 2008 - 21:40
Hey, you think that's bad? Try typing this, making sure you are not doing anything important because it will crash your browser (but did reload all my tabs on restart)... ":%", no quotes, in the address bar.
#8 Sora on 02 Sep 2008 - 19:51
I can't open any menus or options. When I try, the browser crashes. Also, GoogleUpdate is still open. It opened infocard.exe. as well.
#9 Mike on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:00
link in the article is wrong, should be http://www.google.com/chrome not gears.google.com then the css/js etc and download will work

also, the download link doesn't work and probably wont as its not the link that your browser uses to download
(4 replies) #10 Ricmacas on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:01
i dunno if some of you noted but no RSS support
#10.1 Exosphere on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:01
OMG!, ask for a refund then.
#10.2 excalpius on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:13
I think the lack of an adblock of some kind if 1000 times worse than RSS which only like eight people use?
#10.3 +TCLN Ryster on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:18
Maybe there will be a plug-in framework in later releases, then someone can port AdBlock Plus over.

As for RSS... who cares. I want a web browser to browse the web. I use an RSS feed Reader to Read RSS feeds.
#10.4 Chugworth on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:03
Google Reader? Heh, I remember back in the real early versions of Firefox, I would use the live bookmarks also. But eventually I started using Google Reader, and it changed the way I use the Internet.
#11 +chorpeac on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:01
I got mine from google.com/chrome. Looks good. Better impression once it is on my machine than looking at sreenshots. The tabs are different, but not bad. Just weird not having the normal windows bar at the top.

So far so good.
#12 Mikeparkie on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:04
Its dam FasssssssssssstttT thats for sure. some stuff needs adding in due course. But certainly i like it so far!!!
(1 reply) #13 theyarecomingforyou on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:12
Rendering is great, I love the performance, it looks very nice and the incognito mode is a huge plus. However, without Adblock (or something comparable) I can't see myself moving over to it.
#13.1 Jaysteddy on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:47
http://www.funkytoad.com

Hosts file and Homer FTW
#14 some_guy on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:24
its a pretty polished beta... then again, most of google's products are still in beta.
(8 replies) #15 on 01 Jan 1970 - 00:00
#15.1 TekmanRO on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:42
You do realize this is a total rip-off of IE8's InPrivate, right?
#15.2 Jaysteddy on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:48
(TekmanRO said @ #13.1)
You do realize this is a total rip-off of IE8's InPrivate, right?


You mean that single process browser that Chrome has just made obsolete?
#15.3 matt4pack on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:58
(TekmanRO said @ #13.1)
You do realize this is a total rip-off of IE8's InPrivate, right?


Safari has had privacy mode for a while now so I don't see how it can be a ripe off of IE.
#15.4 Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:03
In my opinion, IE8's InPrivate is much more superior to other implementations.
IE8 will also automatically block webtracking urls in InPrivate mode which other implementations don't.

Also, if you want to always launch IE8 in InPrivate mode. Just add -p as a command-line in the shortcut.
Chrome has no such option.

Last edited by Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:33
#15.5 Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:04
(Jaysteddy said @ #13.2)
You mean that single process browser that Chrome has just made obsolete?

IE8 is multiprocess. Each tab is hosted in a seperate process.


Last edited by Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:31
#15.6 noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:19
(Express said @ #13.5)
(Jaysteddy said @ #13.2)
You mean that single process browser that Chrome has just made obsolete?

IE8 is multiprocess. Each tab is hosted in a seperate process.

[citation needed]
tried googling it, almost all the result are Google Chrome related. where did you see that piece of info?
#15.7 BigBoy on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:27
(noPCtoday said @ #13.6)
(Express said @ #13.5)
(Jaysteddy said @ #13.2)
You mean that single process browser that Chrome has just made obsolete?

IE8 is multiprocess. Each tab is hosted in a seperate process.

[citation needed]
tried googling it, almost all the result are Google Chrome related. where did you see that piece of info?


Perhaps you should try a different search engine

Anyway:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-...s-existing.aspx

The Internet Explorer frame and tabs run in separate processes.
- Extensions that use unsupported messaging techniques might no longer function correctly; those that use the standard COM interfaces will not be affected.
#15.8 Code.Red on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:29
(noPCtoday said @ #13.6)
(Express said @ #13.5)
(Jaysteddy said @ #13.2)
You mean that single process browser that Chrome has just made obsolete?

IE8 is multiprocess. Each tab is hosted in a seperate process.

[citation needed]
tried googling it, almost all the result are Google Chrome related. where did you see that piece of info?

The IE blog. http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/07/2...eliability.aspx

Edit: Beaten :p
(1 reply) #16 npierri on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:49
I havent seen RSS option
No way to add a homepage button (at least that i know)
Its simple
Videos at google dont work

There are some things to improve but I see potential.
#16.1 cswimbound on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:18
actually there is a way to enable the homepage button in the options menu under the category titled "basics"
(3 replies) #17 thealexweb on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:55
It seems to lack a few of the features that Firefox and other browsers have.
#17.1 Bobster on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:58
that's because this is a BETA and an early one at that.
#17.2 +TCLN Ryster on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:20
I don't think this kind of thing is unique to Google, but I'm pretty sure a feature set should be finalised before you enter Beta stage. Otherwise the features you add later get far less testing than the features available at the start of the beta cycle.

Just my $0.02
#17.3 sphbecker on 03 Sep 2008 - 11:51
Every software vendor has their own definition of what BETA means, Google seems to use the term very loosely. Typically beta products are feature complete and the only enhancements will be bug fixes and performance tweaks.
(2 replies) #18 TheBlueRaja on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:57
OMG - Adverts - Im sorry Firefox, please forgive me...
#18.1 Exosphere on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:34
Adverts?, what the hell did you download then ?
#18.2 +TCLN Ryster on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:13
Perhaps he's referring to the lack of the AdBlock Plus plug in in Chrome?
#19 M. Seth on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:59
I have to say that it is very simple and very nice to use. It will be very interesting to watch it develop over time.
#20 koppit on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:06
vive la google!
i just installed .. happy happy
#21 Ashl on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:07
I like it as just a browser, fast and well laid out, only thing that would stop me using it now is two minor inconveniences...
1. No Easy Access to my Google Bookmarks(although that is bound to happen at some point)
2. Adblocking would be the one firefox extention I would really want.

Overall very impressed
#22 vsridhars on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:09
Works Great. Quite impressive. Good font and color usages. Quite fast. Holds good promise.
Some website - save password checkboxes did not seem to be visible.
#23 Julius Caro on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:13
Why ... why...
The zoom option doesn't zoom like ff3 (and opera safari and ie before that) does

#24 hagjohn on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:13
Can't install it.

update: got it.. had to get it from the website for some strange reason.
#25 supernova_00 on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:19
Great start for it though. I created http://www.chrome-forums.net/phpBB3/ for support, chat and whatever else related to Google Chrome. Will be up in about an hour.

Last edited by supernova_00 on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:04
(1 reply) #26 Beastage on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:20
This is an insult.

This looks like some student taken webkit and wrapped it with the most simple GUI possible.
#26.1 Majesticmerc on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:36
I agree, it's a Web Browser for those that don't use the internet very often I think.
#27 39 Thieves on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:20
I like it. A lot. Wish it had compatibility with Firefox addons...which are the only thing keeping me using FF at all. =/
#28 Faisal Islam on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:27
Like it. But it has lack of Features. Like RSS, Theme, Less Options & Customization etc
#29 Exosphere on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:36
I like it a lot too - WAY FASTER than Firefox, nice to use too.
#30 CyberWolf on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:40
I am impressed. That is not a easy feat.

For those who are having issues downloading..

http://tools.google.com/chrome/?hl=en-US

run it from there, don't download and save, when prompted just run it and it will work.
(6 replies) #31 vetbangbang023 on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:43
Scary good Javascript results from the SunSpider test:
Firefox 09/01/2008 Gran Paradiso Nightly: 5114ms
Google Chrome: 2846ms

What the hell?
#31.1 x-byte on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:04
It's just Firefox that is slow.

Get 4786.8ms in Opera 9.52

Chrome is too lightweighted and simple. I need more features in my browser. Ok for a beta though.
#31.2 Jugalator on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:38
(x-byte said @ #31.1)
It's just Firefox that is slow.

Get 4786.8ms in Opera 9.52

Chrome is too lightweighted and simple. I need more features in my browser. Ok for a beta though.

Actually both Firefox 3 and Opera 9.5 are very fast in Javascript compared to just versions before, they made some major improvements here. It's just that Google's V8 engine in this one is even faster. Look at Firefox 2 or IE for "slow" (IE 7 or IE 8 Beta 2, make your pick, it doesn't matter that much).

It seems like Google's Javascript engine compiles code into machine code quite efficiently according to their docs, I think that's behind a lot of things going on here.
#31.3 Beastage on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:06
(bangbang023 said @ #31)
Scary good Javascript results from the SunSpider test:
Firefox 09/01/2008 Gran Paradiso Nightly: 5114ms
Google Chrome: 2846ms

What the hell?


Sorry BB but seems something wrong with your computer , your results for all the browsers you mentioned are high

I get ~1600ms for chrome , ~1200 for latest opera weekly and ~1400 for minefield.
#31.4 vetbangbang023 on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:20
(Beastage said @ #31.3)
Sorry BB but seems something wrong with your computer , your results for all the browsers you mentioned are high

I get ~1600ms for chrome , ~1200 for latest opera weekly and ~1400 for minefield.

Lol, nothing is wrong with it. It's an old Athlon64 3700+ running at stock.
#31.5 rm20010 on 03 Sep 2008 - 02:20
How does Safari (on Windows) compare?
#31.6 +Kirkburn on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:41
(bangbang023 said @ #1)
Scary good Javascript results from the SunSpider test:
Firefox 09/01/2008 Gran Paradiso Nightly: 5114ms

Why are you calling it Gran Paradiso? That was Firefox 3. Firefox 3.1 is Shiretoko.

And no, V8 is not that much better than the updated engine in Firefox 3.1 - see for example http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/arc...key_update.html
(3 replies) #32 brent3000 on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:48
its firefox with nothing between the tabs and he top of the window...

Shows as safari to most things

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3254/imgha7.jpg

Last edited by brent3000 on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:04
#32.1 Jugalator on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:37
Yes, Google threw in some Safari stuff in the browser's user agent string, probably to make sites id it as Safari in case they're written for that browser, because as this one is based on WebKit too, it'll do very similar to Safari standards-wise.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13
#32.2 predator001 on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:08
(brent3000 said @ #32)
its firefox with nothing between the tabs and he top of the window...

Shows as safari to most things

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3254/imgha7.jpg


a phpbb3 forum on a site i help run shows as

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13
#32.3 hagjohn on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:55
Funny... on Vista 64

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Vers
#33 12Iceman on 02 Sep 2008 - 21:50
Sadly, the "Restore the pages that were open last" option does not appear to be working for me. When I reopen Chrome, I am presented with the new tab page rather than my tabs from the last session.
#34 aStRaLgOd on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:19
Holy cow it's fast man..... needs some tweaking, but MAN it's fast....
(1 reply) #35 noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:21
has anyone peak'd the source code yet? The source code only supports VS2005, but I have VS2008 installed.
Looks like Chrome is using WPF since it's got very smooth animation and aero effect. I wonder what Language was it written and weather or not it used .Net framework 3.5 and WPF?


Last edited by noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:29
#35.1 Jugalator on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:45
It seems to be written in C++, nothing .NET, WPF, or C++/CLI for that matter

C++ apps can be written efficiently enough to also often provide smooth animations, and WPF is no prerequisite to do Aero interfaces. Check the Aero Glass API docs on MSDN. Microsoft Office 2007 also uses Aero effects, but is similarly written in C++.
(3 replies) #36 Laser_iCE on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:23
BLAHBLAHBLAH It doesn't do what I want to. It's BETA was released within the past 24 hours and already I'm complaining that it isn't the greatest browser out there. Oh, look here comes another Google app and it's too minimalistic, I need to see everything on the one page at once otherwise I don't feel important.

PLEASE! This is a fantastic browser which is extremely fast and loads all the pages I need it to correctly. I'm now waiting for plugins so I can load AdBlock+ and NoScript, but I'm happy to wait until then. It looks great, very easy on the eyes and the tabs look/work well too.

Oh and lol @ the people claiming "but they copied etc.etc." it's funny how things work like that, y'know if another company has a good idea and you like that idea, you'll reproduce it as your own interpretation. God forbid that two browsers have two similar functions to give us, the users, more of an option when it comes to choosing what we use.
#36.1 stevehoot on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:33
Get out of your ivory tower pal - a PUBLIC BETA is generally a feature release that has the main feature set already set in stone. Otherwise they screwed up pre-development when doing the spec.

If it doesn't do everything that people want at this stage then whilst it maybe possible it's unlikely it'll be included until the next version.

GUI and the overall look and feel is subjective why flame people for giving their opinion?

Personally I love the speed, but that's about it. Too basic what for I want but i'm sure it will satisfy grandma and the likes. Hate the requirement of Gears and the bloody updater utility. Hate those sort of things. Can't say I'm too fond of the fisher price GUI either but I'll do I guess.
#36.2 vanacid on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:43
huh..... it is version 0.2.149.27

We are VERY far from version 1.0.0.0

BETA 0.2 (core functionalities) < BETA 0.9 (All functionalities)

You need to understand how software development goes.
#36.3 nonick on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:10
(stevehoot said @ #36.1)
Get out of your ivory tower pal - a PUBLIC BETA is generally a feature release that has the main feature set already set in stone. Otherwise they screwed up pre-development when doing the spec.

If it doesn't do everything that people want at this stage then whilst it maybe possible it's unlikely it'll be included until the next version.

GUI and the overall look and feel is subjective why flame people for giving their opinion?

Personally I love the speed, but that's about it. Too basic what for I want but i'm sure it will satisfy grandma and the likes. Hate the requirement of Gears and the bloody updater utility. Hate those sort of things. Can't say I'm too fond of the fisher price GUI either but I'll do I guess.


You know that this is v0.2 right? When it turns v1.0 then you might call it complete product. Heck, remember the firefox days back then?

That's what he was talking about
(6 replies) #37 noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:28
Wow people you guys are missing the whole point of the browser. Google is not stupid, it doesnt want to destroy its fellow FF/Safari and even Opera. It's meant to discover a new territory of browser. An App based, stable, efficient and even compiled javascript. It's not a Broswer we imagined and it certainly is not supposed to be our everyday broswer. It is designed to run Gmail, Calendar etc web applications. It doesn't need ad-block, rss feed because it's not designed as a everday web broswer.. geez people.
#37.1 Jugalator on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:32
Agreed about that, although you have to admit it has numerous features to aid in everyday browsing as well. Bookmark imports from Firefox, an interesting searchable *download* history (which doesn't even apply to web applications), private browsing, etc.

I'd say it's this: a new browser *tuned* for the web as it looks like today, heavy in web services. But of course Google would like it see replace other browsers, they aren't that stupid to not want this either.
#37.2 noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:38
(Jugalator said @ #37.1)
Agreed about that, although you have to admit it has numerous features to aid in everyday browsing as well. Bookmark imports from Firefox, an interesting searchable *download* history (which doesn't even apply to web applications), private browsing, etc.

I'd say it's this: a new browser *tuned* for the web as it looks like today, heavy in web services. But of course Google would like it see replace other browsers, they aren't that stupid to not want this either.

I think these features are just google's strategy, they want to attract people to use it, and slowly people will realize how powerful it can handle apps and yet it is not a fantastic browser for web browsing. then people will start using Chrome for email etc, and FF for web browsing
#37.3 stevehoot on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:41
What the hell are you on about?

<quote> not supposed to be our everyday broswer. It is designed to run Gmail, Calendar etc web applications. </quote>

Um, a browser is used to BROWSE THE INTERNET - maybe if your new to the internet you can be forgiven, but actually Google isn't the only content provider / web 2.0 developer on the net. Designing a browser means it should be fit for browsing the net, not just Google's corner of it. That means RSS, flash, customisation, etc.

<quote>It's meant to discover a new territory of browser.</quote>

There's nothing new about Webkit or displaying web apps in a browser. Other stuff is great - like the isolation, but may I suggest getting some perception about Chrome?

And there's not a hope in hell of it taking off if it's not supposed to be your everyday browser - IE8/FF3 work fine for Google apps - why use two browsers when the more feature rich ones already do it?

Not knocking Chrome - competition is good, but your post really is very ignorant IMHO.
#37.4 noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:44
(stevehoot said @ #37.3)
What the hell are you on about?

<quote> not supposed to be our everyday broswer. It is designed to run Gmail, Calendar etc web applications. </quote>

Um, a browser is used to BROWSE THE INTERNET - maybe if your new to the internet you can be forgiven, but actually Google isn't the only content provider / web 2.0 developer on the net. Designing a browser means it should be fit for browsing the net, not just Google's corner of it. That means RSS, flash, customisation, etc.

<quote>It's meant to discover a new territory of browser.</quote>

There's nothing new about Webkit or displaying web apps in a browser. Other stuff is great - like the isolation, but may I suggest getting some perception about Chrome?

And there's not a hope in hell of it taking off if it's not supposed to be your everyday browser - IE8/FF3 work fine for Google apps - why use two browsers when the more feature rich ones already do it?

Not knocking Chrome - competition is good, but your post really is very ignorant IMHO.
Webkit is only part of Chrome, but more importantly it has V8 and Multi process. That's a lot different than just Webkit in disguise. yes i've done my research on Chrome.
#37.5 vanacid on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:47
(stevehoot said @ #37.3)
What the hell are you on about?

<quote> not supposed to be our everyday broswer. It is designed to run Gmail, Calendar etc web applications. </quote>

Um, a browser is used to BROWSE THE INTERNET - maybe if your new to the internet you can be forgiven, but actually Google isn't the only content provider / web 2.0 developer on the net. Designing a browser means it should be fit for browsing the net, not just Google's corner of it. That means RSS, flash, customisation, etc.


You need to read the comics they published to present their browser to understand what he meant. And he is right in regards to what google wants according to google's press release.
#37.6 Jugalator on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:47
(noPCtoday said @ #37.2)
(Jugalator said @ #37.1)
Agreed about that, although you have to admit it has numerous features to aid in everyday browsing as well. Bookmark imports from Firefox, an interesting searchable *download* history (which doesn't even apply to web applications), private browsing, etc.

I'd say it's this: a new browser *tuned* for the web as it looks like today, heavy in web services. But of course Google would like it see replace other browsers, they aren't that stupid to not want this either.

I think these features are just google's strategy, they want to attract people to use it, and slowly people will realize how powerful it can handle apps and yet it is not a fantastic browser for web browsing. then people will start using Chrome for email etc, and FF for web browsing

I think the risk in that strategy is too great that people will want to switch back to Firefox entirely. I don't think people in general want to use multiple applications to browse the web.
#38 Jugalator on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:29
Google's V8 is a very very high performing Javascript engine it feels like, and confirmed by various online tests. It often even beats Firefox 3 with its pants down.

Also nice to have tab isolation like IE 8, but in a high performing WebKit-based browser.

Shift+Esc with the browser window active for individual tab memory info = great. Tab memory freed immediately as tabs are closed = awesome.

"Inspect component..." on the right-click menu is great for web developers.

But all isn't shiny, it's a very basic browser in this first beta at least, and with no extension support like in Firefox to make things better for the power users. But it's a very solid browser foundation at least. This wouldn't be too exciting if it was proprietary, but this time it's an open source browser. Just wait for people to fork this project and add extension support. Yumm, Mozilla would have a serious competitor on their hands. The HTML renderer and Javascript engine both seems more impressive than Firefox's at this point to me. (and of course, even IE 8 Beta 2 is still miles behind, unfortunately) I'm starting to like WebKit more and more, heh.
(1 reply) #39 noPCtoday on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:41
that is undoubtable. Virtual Machine basically compiles Javascript. None of the browsers have ever done that before. and of course, compiled languages can maximize computer's potential. FF3.1 probably have a faster way to emulate javascript than all the other broswers, but after all, emulation can't beat native compilation.

i might be wrong tho... just my understanding.
#39.1 Express on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:57
Basically you can write javascript code that can make implementations that generate machine code to be run very slow. The same code can run run fast in non-machine code implementations.
A long time ago, I wrote a regular expression engine to generate machine code.
When you repeatedly use the same regular expression in a loop it turned out to be very fast.
However, if the loop generated a new regex pattern every time you call the regular expression function, my implementation was slow -- the compilation time made it slow.
#40 TruckWEB on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:42
I must be blind but I can't find where to organize my Favorite/Bookmarks.

Other than that, it seems to be fine. But not enough to make me switch from FireFox. Will Chrome have plug-ins like FF? I love DownloadHelper!
(2 replies) #41 KeR on 02 Sep 2008 - 22:44
Mac version coming soon:
#41.1 vetneufuse on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:43
(KeR said @ #41)
Mac version coming soon:


Looks like an old electronic "Simon" game... *lol*
#41.2 predator001 on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:50
(neufuse said @ #41.1)
(KeR said @ #41)
Mac version coming soon:


Looks like an old electronic "Simon" game... *lol*


hahaha

they had a blue quarter too did they not...or am i mistaken.
(2 replies) #42 jeavis on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:20
Page rendering is VERY fast, and since it's built on Mozilla it's mostly the same as Firefox. Only a couple things missing.

1. Needs to have Shift+Enter for *.net
2. Needs to have Ctrl+Shift+Enter for *.org
3. Needs to support extensions like Firefox.
#42.1 =NickJ= on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:37
*deleted*
#42.2 Antaris on 03 Sep 2008 - 06:21
It uses Webkit, not Gecko....
#43 Darrian on 02 Sep 2008 - 23:32
I like it. A lot. I can't wait to see it by the time it's done. I hope they keep the bloat out. Extension support would be welcomed. Hope it's ultimately skinnable, too.
(1 reply) #44 zape on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:21
Acid3: 79/100
Acid2: Passes
#44.1 aarste on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:50
Linktest fails on Chrome, whatever that means, not apparent in Firefox 3 though
#45 wahoospa on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:21
Tried to play the universal crossword in my local newspaper it kept freezing after playing about 5 minutes and the hd ran a lot for some reason. Opera and Firefox had no problems with the puzzle. Would not load the puzzle at jigzone.com at all. No problems with Opera and Firefox there either. Needs more features too, like ad-block, and flash killer just to name a few.
#46 XeonBuilder on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:28
I got it working and its really fast. Ugly but fast. If you downloaded from the link up top it might not work when you try to run the installer. Just goto the actual site download it from there and it should work.
#47 mpregelj on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:35
anyone know how to disable spell-checking?
#48 Greenstein on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:36
I'm far from an experienced, power browser, but honestly, I really like it. As a few others above indicated, it appears to load all pages I go to quickly and efficiently.

I'll continue to use it.
#49 vetneufuse on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:44
I'm not to impressed by this browser... feels very incomplete to me right now.. and too minimal (yes I know it is a beta, but being google, this will probably be a beta for a long time and lacking features for a good amount of time)
#50 McDave on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:48
Looks pritty cool with areo glass enabled.

When you create an application shortcut it displays the webpage without any tab options and menus etc. When google gears is enabled on gmail should be an intresting combanation.
(1 reply) #51 yakumo on 03 Sep 2008 - 00:58
I increase FF3's pipeline maxrequests to 8, opera changes this automatically.

with that set I find FF3 loads pages, and multiple pages far faster, but the lack of JS holding things up in chrome is great.


I'm not entirely sure if the results on http://limi.net/articles/google-chrome-benchmarks-and-more/ are more or less interesting than the fact the page refuses to load at all in Chrome.

needs plugins, and FF/opera style history and bookmark side bars, FF3 style fullscreen mode.
#51.1 Magallanes on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:22
I too find that some webpages are unable to see it and jump a quick "page with troubles or page inexistent". Disabling the dns feature inside chrome did nothing.


Last edited by Magallanes on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:31
(1 reply) #52 -Hiroshi- on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:01
weird, I can't even get the damn setup to run
#52.1 hagjohn on 03 Sep 2008 - 01:52
download it from google and it will work.
(1 reply) #53 rm20010 on 03 Sep 2008 - 02:25
Pretty good. Finally a decent WebKit browser for Windows.

The only things bothering me are the lack of middle mouse scrolling and smooth scrolling. But otherwise, UI is nice and clean.
#53.1 Jugalator on 03 Sep 2008 - 11:14
I was thinking the same thing. Apple's Safari for Windows has horrible memory management and I easily got it up to 400 MB when I ran it to try it out. So this is very useful for designers to test their web sites in a WebKit browser on Windows too.

Besides, WebKit is also so high performing, so it's nice to have and watch what'll happen with it in the future.
#54 kannon on 03 Sep 2008 - 02:54

Can someone give me pros n cons about a new google browser, will it be a forever beta?????

why n why not???
#55 vipwoody on 03 Sep 2008 - 02:57
Google Chrome is soo fukn fast!
#56 Airlink on 03 Sep 2008 - 03:04
It is really fast, but it's not exactly feature-complete yet. Still, I like the direction Google is heading with this.
What's really great about this is that Mozilla are free to take what they want from the Chrome codebase and apply it to whatever they want... and vice versa. Open Source FTW!
(1 reply) #57 :: Lyon :: on 03 Sep 2008 - 03:13
Can someone give me pros n cons about a new google browser, will it be a forever beta?????

Well I just made a blog post about the things to hate and love about it if you want to know
#57.1 39 Thieves on 03 Sep 2008 - 04:43
...Who are you?
#58 McDave on 03 Sep 2008 - 03:31
I'm not having much luck right now with crome, it is consistantly frezing windows and requires me to restart the computer.
(1 reply) #59 Hills420 on 03 Sep 2008 - 03:55
Just a reminder everyone, it is an early beta
#59.1 Lare2 on 03 Sep 2008 - 05:27
Just a reminder everyone, Beta means final for google i.... /jk
#60 A Clockwork Lime on 03 Sep 2008 - 03:58
Uhm, it's supposed to be a simple, non-nonsense browser. Why? Because it's intended to be the baseline for custom built interfaces. There's no need to include AdBlock, themes, or anything else by default; that's the whole point. People are free and encouraged to take it and mold it into whatever shape they want.

So crying about it being largely featureless is pretty damn ignorant.
#61 CrazyK on 03 Sep 2008 - 05:24
Hmm I actually like it. Its a bit too early to use it right now but its simple fast.
(1 reply) #62 Joshie on 03 Sep 2008 - 06:39
Is it strange that I'm curious what would happen if this became a real competitor on the Mac platform? If Google's webkit could, you know, stomp out Safari? Mostly I'm just curious how Apple would react to it.
#62.1 Jugalator on 03 Sep 2008 - 11:12
Why? I don't think Apple users fall in love with the rendering engine WebKit, but the software, like any other user.

Firefox is already available for Mac, isn't that one a greater threat since it has evolved more than Chrome?
(1 reply) #63 Flatty on 03 Sep 2008 - 07:03
I'm not having much luck right now with crome, it is consistantly frezing windows and requires me to restart the computer.

:-( :-( :-(

Same for me. On the desktop where I work (no games, no crap apps, no mp3 music and fun stuff... just "office" software) I must admit Chrome renders the pages a lot faster than IE/FF, but at the cost of general slowness and choppiness. Dragging a Chrome windows is ok, while resizing it looks choppy. After some minutes, a basic webpage tends to freeze the tab/window for few seconds. Two times I had to close the app and re-start.

Overall it looks promising (the 30+ pages story was fun and very interesting indeed) but on my sistem it just does not work very well (Windows XP sp2 on a Sempron 3000+, 2Gb ram, GeForce 6800 AGP).
#63.1 McDave on 03 Sep 2008 - 17:22
My copy of genunine vista had only been freshly installed for less than a day (with all the updates) and then on top of that Office 07 student.
#64 +Sethos on 03 Sep 2008 - 08:50
Replaced FF for me!
#65 joker999 on 03 Sep 2008 - 09:22
Christ! Loading fast the startup Chrome!
(1 reply) #66 DARKFiB3R on 03 Sep 2008 - 10:07
Seems pretty good so far, but it has a long way to go before it will replace firefox for me. And without an extension system in place, I'm not sure it ever will.
#66.1 Jugalator on 03 Sep 2008 - 11:09
I heard that Google told it was on the roadmap though. Remember this is just the very first release, and they've told there's much more to come. I'm susprised it's performing so well, and is so stable, for being a first.
#67 cork1958 on 03 Sep 2008 - 11:56
Yuck!!
(2 replies) #68 Havin_it on 03 Sep 2008 - 13:55
Crap, couldn't even install it. Here's why:

One of my personal quirks when I install Windows is to revoke the Execute permissions from the areas that a user has Write permission for: that is, everything under C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\. That just means that a luser can't download something and execute it without requiring Administrator privileges, which effectively cripples almost all malware.

Unfortunately, it also assumes that programs will install their executables into Program Files, which makes perfect sense on a multi-user OS. Nothing should really be installed into a user's Application Data folder except - you guessed it - data that's specific to that user's settings for the program. Only some developers, who seem to be stuck in 1995, have not yet woken up to this idea of separation of program files and user data. Symantec and Sage are two prime offenders, though the list is massive. And now Google join that Hall of Shame, with the Google Update program file being installed under Application Data.

I spent at least half an hour sitting through that comic of theirs, wherein they drench us with hyperbole about their high ideals and best practices for the browser. Shame it didn't extend to the %*^$ing installation!
#68.1 supernova_00 on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:19
Can't you just right-click the exe and select run as administratorr, enter password?

By the way, there is a forum dedicated to Chrome. Here is the link http://www.chrome-forums.net/phpBB3/index.php
Not trying to steal anything from neowin though...just making it known.
#68.2 Havin_it on 03 Sep 2008 - 20:19
(supernova_00 said @ #68.1)
Can't you just right-click the exe and select run as administratorr, enter password?

By the way, there is a forum dedicated to Chrome. Here is the link http://www.chrome-forums.net/phpBB3/index.php
Not trying to steal anything from neowin though...just making it known.


It's not a question of being able to run the installer exe itself (or the installed exe for that matter), it's that the installation is putting the executables into a place where they should not be. Since I posted this, I've learned that the whole program, not just the updater program, gets put into the Application Data folder of the user that installed it. That means (a)it can't simply e installed once for all users, and (b) it could possibly be installed by a Limited User with the default Windows permissions, which sysadmins will not like.

The clues are in the names, really: Program Files. Application Data. You'd think Google could work that out.
(4 replies) #69 GEIST on 03 Sep 2008 - 15:11
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

All your posts are belong to Google.
#69.1 solardog on 03 Sep 2008 - 15:49
Wow, that's messed up. Technically, anything that moves through that browser from anywhere to anywhere is theirs to use for whatever purpose, whenever and however.
#69.2 azcodemonkey on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:39
Thanks for pointing that out. That alone precludes me from ever using this browser. I cannot pass off license of my clients' IP to Google. Lame - just lame. So much for their "Do No Evil" mantra. What a joke.
#69.3 Magallanes on 03 Sep 2008 - 21:38
Google changed the evil-EULA to a most-common-EULA, but and because Google can do retroactive changes to the EULA so they (wherever they want to) can change back to the evil-EULA again.

#69.4 Sacha on 04 Sep 2008 - 09:46
Are you guys serious? Since when did EULA ever mean anything? Companies don't act based on their EULA. The joke is that Google copy and pasted their EULA from their web services. If you actually read the EULA properly you'd see it referred to postings on Google services only -- not their browser. Do you not remember Apple's EULA for Safari very recently which stated that it could only be installed on apple hardware?

They have now changed their EULA to please you.

It's an open-source browser - the code is in full view. Google only gets information that you send to google servers. Wake up.

Last edited by Sacha on 04 Sep 2008 - 09:55
#70 Tager on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:28
wish to have the option to have Chrome use Google Bookmarks instead and possibly Google Toolbar, otherwise nice, fast browser
(1 reply) #71 spacer on 03 Sep 2008 - 16:32
Chrome allows the execution of .exe's without user input.

/fail
#71.1 +SOOPRcow on 04 Sep 2008 - 13:27
(spacer said @ #71)
Chrome allows the execution of .exe's without user input.

/fail


Not to undermine the security problem but I'm pretty sure it just downloads, without executing, them without user input.
#72 jordanthegreat on 03 Sep 2008 - 18:29
Nice browser. NOT a Firefox killer.
(1 reply) #73 este on 03 Sep 2008 - 19:13
when is it suppose to get a final rls?
#73.1 brent3000 on 04 Sep 2008 - 09:52
like most google products....



NEVER


*cough*gmail*cough*
#74 andy2004 on 04 Sep 2008 - 00:27
hope everyone has uninstalled this now due to the big wide gaping hole in chrome
#75 hal90001 on 04 Sep 2008 - 10:43
this browser is PURE crap, down with the goole crapware!!!
#76 TC17 on 04 Sep 2008 - 18:01
The ONLY reason it seems so fast is because it has nothing in it for features. Its an extremely basic plain lame browser with no options.

The thing doesn't even scroll the correct direction when you use your mouse wheel. I assume they did this on purpose to give the illusion the browser is unique.
#77 exit on 05 Sep 2008 - 06:55
This is what I was thinking as well and I agree
#78 coth on 12 Sep 2008 - 14:24
how is that happened it support google search only

it's also looks like it use some critical holes in firefox. when you click install it doesn't ask me to save the file - it's just save it and run it...

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)