main

Google Releases First Chrome Beta

Christopher Vendemio   on 02 September 2008 - 19:28, updated 03 September 2008 - 17:50 · 156 comments & 44433 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 156 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.
(6 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.
(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!!!
(8 replies) Edit this comment #13 Guest on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:10
Hey its also got incognito...

You've gone incognito. Pages that you view in this window won't appear in your browser history or search history, and they won't leave other traces, like cookies, on your computer after you close the incognito window. Any files that you download or bookmarks that you create will be preserved, however.

Going incognito doesn't affect the behaviour of other people, servers or software. Be wary of:
Websites that collect or share information about you
Internet service providers or employers that track the pages that you visit
Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys
Surveillance by secret agents
People standing behind you
Learn more about incognito browsing.

Sweeeeeet!
#13.1 TekmanRO on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:42
You do realize this is a total rip-off of IE8's InPrivate, right?
#13.2 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?
#13.3 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.
#13.4 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
#13.5 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
#13.6 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?
#13.7 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.
#13.8 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) #14 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.
#14.1 Jaysteddy on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:47
http://www.funkytoad.com

Hosts file and Homer FTW
#15 some_guy on 02 Sep 2008 - 20:24
its a pretty polished beta... then again, most of google's products are still in beta.
(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 bangbang023 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 bangbang023 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