main
Report a problem

Google Chrome 2.0 pre-beta released

Andrew Lyle   on 09 January 2009 - 03:57 · 71 comments & 17621 views

Advertisement (Why?)
After the release of the Internet giants first web browser, titled Chrome, Google is hard at work on making their next version of Chrome up to standards with other browsers. The team at Google has taken the feedback received from the first official release, and made changes accordingly.

You can expect to see the following new features:
Form Autocomplete:


Something browsers currently have, and a small, yet important feature to implement into Chrome.

Full-page Zoom:


The ability to zoom in on text and images using your keyboard shortcuts, making text easier to read. The image zoom will also utilize your keyboard shortcuts like Ctrl – and Ctrl + to zoom in and out.

Autoscroll:


An easy navigation feature built in that allows the users to scroll up and down, as well as side to side by clicking their scroll wheel.

Profiles:


Keeping your settings separate between users and personalizing your browser, such as homepage, bookmarks, and browsing history. You can also open a new window to switch profiles without exiting.

Greasemonkey Scripts (user-scripts):


Now users can add their own scripts to their browser to help customize their browsing experience

Google also mentioned improvements in their Webkit, V8 javascript engine, a better implementation for SafeBrowsing (malware / phishing protection) and new code for the HTTP network protocol.

Users can test the latest version of Google Chrome by following these steps:
  • If you don't have Google Chrome, install it from google.com/chrome
  • Subscribe to the developer preview channel. This is required even if you've previously subscribed to the channel.
  • Wait until the new version is downloaded (you may force the update by opening the "About Google Chrome" dialog).

Link: Google Chrome 2.0 Release Notes

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 71 additional comments
#1 Raa on 09 Jan 2009 - 04:07
Fantastic!
(2 replies) #2 Steven77 on 09 Jan 2009 - 04:10
Just installed it!! Bottom of the browser is not connecting with the taskbar in full screen mode like it should but otherwise so far so good! Feels about the same speed wise.
#2.1 vipwoody on 09 Jan 2009 - 04:56
Steven77 said,
Just installed it!! Bottom of the browser is not connecting with the taskbar in full screen mode like it should but otherwise so far so good! Feels about the same speed wise.


yeah you are right... same thing with me.
#2.2 +Ned on 09 Jan 2009 - 06:29
Looks like it's already fixed in the hourly builds... I'm on vista and I'm not seeing the problem.
(7 replies) #3 Intelman on 09 Jan 2009 - 04:13
Finally, zoom. This is one thing that IE innovated in. They had Full page zoom with images for a while. Then Firefox added it, and finally Chrome....

It is hard to live without.
#3.1 PsykX on 09 Jan 2009 - 04:22
I agree. I'm waiting for a zoom like this in Safari. Because zooming on the size of fonts break every single website possible. o_O

It should have been there since a long time already, but anyway. I'll give them until Snow Leopard, then I'll start to whine about it
#3.2 Ghostcool on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:13
Sorry, but Opera innovated, having this feature years before IE.

Its hard to find any innovation in Internet Explorer when its stay seven years in the same version.
#3.3 Jugalator on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:14
This is one thing that Opera innovated in.

FTFY :-) (a feature since 2001, the year IE 6 was released)

I know it doesn't matter, but it was you who brought it up as an innovation.
#3.4 ThomMcK on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:41
I didn't know about Ctrl +/- before in IE but it works great!
#3.5 siyama on 09 Jan 2009 - 10:58
Jugalator said,
FTFY :-) (a feature since 2001, the year IE 6 was released)

I know it doesn't matter, but it was you who brought it up as an innovation.


Wrong! IE6 didn't had the full page zoom feature, only text zooming or - to be exact - you can only change 5 level of text size ( Largest, Larger, Medium, Smaller, Smallest )

It was IE7 that Microsoft added full page zoom feature to IE, which release a few years after Opera had implement full page zoom feature.
#3.6 PROGAME on 09 Jan 2009 - 11:22
siyama said,
Wrong! IE6 didn't had the full page zoom feature, only text zooming or - to be exact - you can only change 5 level of text size ( Largest, Larger, Medium, Smaller, Smallest )

It was IE7 that Microsoft added full page zoom feature to IE, which release a few years after Opera had implement full page zoom feature.


that's what he wrote, try reading his post again along with what he quoted and the FTFY expression...
#3.7 Ender2070 on 10 Jan 2009 - 18:40
PROGAME said,
siyama said,
Wrong! IE6 didn't had the full page zoom feature, only text zooming or - to be exact - you can only change 5 level of text size ( Largest, Larger, Medium, Smaller, Smallest )

It was IE7 that Microsoft added full page zoom feature to IE, which release a few years after Opera had implement full page zoom feature.


that's what he wrote, try reading his post again along with what he quoted and the FTFY expression...


Opera had full page zoom (with images) back in Version 3 from 1998
(1 reply) #4 Richardo on 09 Jan 2009 - 04:23
This has rendering issues - on Neowin the forum menu is funky and words are in the wrong places. Facebook has alignment issues around the applications box too. I have only been surfing 3 minutes with Chrome 2, I know it's a prebeta, but it doesn't seem as perfect as Chrome 1 yet.
#4.1 +Anarkii on 09 Jan 2009 - 11:42
This works fine for me for both in Neowin and Facebook.
(11 replies) #5 thenonhacker on 09 Jan 2009 - 05:02
Still no AdBlock?

I'll stick to Firefox, thank you very much.
#5.1 Statikk on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:10
Google is an advertising company...why on earth would you think they would include adblock style fuctionality in their browser?!
#5.2 Jugalator on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:19
Statikk said,
Google is an advertising company...why on earth would you think they would include adblock style fuctionality in their browser?!

They perhaps won't, but they're planning to include extension support, which is basically good enough. ;-)

Too bad it didn't happen in this version, yet, at least.
#5.3 darkpuma on 09 Jan 2009 - 11:04
Jugalator said,
They perhaps won't, but they're planning to include extension support, which is basically good enough. ;-)

Too bad it didn't happen in this version, yet, at least.

Yeah, a browser today without adblock just doesnt cut it for me. I stick to ie7 with the iepro addon... couldnt live without it. SOOOO many ads everywhere now.
#5.4 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 11:59
No browser has this feature built in. I'm sure they'd get a lot of angry words if they did.

Whatever addons become available though are fine.
#5.5 +GreenMartian on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:38
dead.cell said,
No browser has this feature built in. I'm sure they'd get a lot of angry words if they did.

Opera does...
#5.6 vetbangbang023 on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:03
It's not an ad blocker, per se, in Opera.
#5.7 Vestat on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:13
I found an integrated ad-blocking application in Maxthon 2.0 (one of my favourite browsers)... but I'm not really sure it's been made from maxthon creators... maybe i'll check it out.
#5.8 dangel on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:50
bangbang023 said,
It's not an ad blocker, per se, in Opera.


It's a URL filter list but in all honesty it's the same thing in reality.
#5.9 vek on 09 Jan 2009 - 15:47
I use http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php and its based on the chrome code. They have adblock for it. Just copy this file from their site and overwrite the default one that installs with it. http://www.srware.net/downloads/adblock.ini
#5.10 Shadrack on 09 Jan 2009 - 17:01
If ads didn't go completely overboard then an adblock wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, web pages emphasize their adverts more than their content *cough*. And with extremely aggressive advertisements such as ad-sense words that cause annoying pop-ups in the middle of the content *cough* *cough*, who wouldn't use an ad-blocker?
#5.11 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 20:20
dangel said,
It's a URL filter list but in all honesty it's the same thing in reality.


I take it the filter blows? Because a lot of ads still come through on various sites, not to mention the sites looking quite funky...
(3 replies) #6 Tikitiki on 09 Jan 2009 - 05:22
Profiles - interesting. Also interested on what exactly "new code for the HTTP network protocol." means?
#6.1 rajputwarrior on 09 Jan 2009 - 05:49
prolly changes the way it connects to websites
#6.2 Tikitiki on 09 Jan 2009 - 05:54
rajputwarrior said,
prolly changes the way it connects to websites


Well, yeh, but the technical details.
#6.3 Jugalator on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:23
I don't really understand the big point of profiles.

Aren't you supposed to use user accounts for that. At least if you want different profiles for different users.

But yes, there's some use for e.g. work/school style settings alone, but that's it.
(4 replies) #7 zivan56 on 09 Jan 2009 - 06:36
So they are basically just catching up? Gecko has had all of these for years...so I don't see what would cause them to move to version 2.0...maybe 1.5...
#7.1 +GreenMartian on 09 Jan 2009 - 08:14
With other Google products moving so slowly (how many years did it take for Gmail to get out of beta?), it's feels weird seeing them push Chrome like this.

With IE already preparing v8, and Opera getting ready for v10, I think they are just trying to not look like they're too far behind
#7.2 Statikk on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:12
According to the logo in the upper left hand corner Gmail is still in beta...
#7.3 Jugalator on 09 Jan 2009 - 09:25
On one hand, yes, they're catching up. On the other hand, they're offering features not shared with Gecko.
#7.4 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:02
Well, they just came out with Chrome, so no, I don't expect it to be on par with everything else. However, it's still nice to use in its current state. Makes me feel that I may very well jump ship when extensions become available and some addons get written up for it.
(1 reply) #8 kizzaaa on 09 Jan 2009 - 07:13
I'm looking forward to this. Can't for the Mac version.
#8.1 Magallanes on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:03
google is build over webkit.
#9 Angry_Badger on 09 Jan 2009 - 07:36
RSS support yet?
(8 replies) #10 war on 09 Jan 2009 - 07:54
2.0? More like 0.2 version. Still shity!!
#10.1 jporter on 09 Jan 2009 - 08:37
"Still" ****ty? Chrome 1 is great, use it everyday, almost never have to use IE anymore. Come on, tell me what is so ****ty about it?
#10.2 traxor on 09 Jan 2009 - 10:16
jporter said,
"Still" ****ty? Chrome 1 is great, use it everyday, almost never have to use IE anymore. Come on, tell me what is so ****ty about it?

You used IE?

I tried Google Chrome but it's no good... not as a designer anyway.
#10.3 jporter on 09 Jan 2009 - 11:28
traxor said,
You used IE?

I tried Google Chrome but it's no good... not as a designer anyway.

Normally I used FF, but as some sites NEED ie I'll have to use that. Now I'm on Chrome for daily use. For example at work we have 3 sites that NEED ie. I know, bad programming/scripting but it happens. That is why I mentioned ie.

I don't know why Chrome is not good, but I'm no experienced web designer so I'm sure there are some standards that are not compatible with Chrome. Haven't really nocited. But to say it's a bad browser goes far I guess...
#10.4 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:04
I like it, and I've been a Firefox user for years. Now with the mention of extensions later on... I may end up using Chrome more often.
#10.5 FredEx on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:59
Normally I used FF, but as some sites NEED ie I'll have to use that. Now I'm on Chrome for daily use. For example at work we have 3 sites that NEED ie. I know, bad programming/scripting but it happens. That is why I mentioned ie.

I don't know why Chrome is not good, but I'm no experienced web designer so I'm sure there are some standards that are not compatible with Chrome. Haven't really nocited. But to say it's a bad browser goes far I guess...


In Firefox use the IE Tab extension and add the websites that 'NEED' IE in to the list in the extension to automatically render those pages in an IE tab on Firefox. I hit a couple sites that work fine in FF except for their video page on the sites. It is a scripting thing they never fix, although told about it.
#10.6 theyarecomingforyou on 09 Jan 2009 - 19:54
jporter said,
Normally I used FF, but as some sites NEED ie I'll have to use that.

Those sites should be avoided then. It is inexcusable to create sites that only work with IE.
#10.7 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 20:25
theyarecomingforyou said,
Those sites should be avoided then. It is inexcusable to create sites that only work with IE.


I'll be sure to notify my college of that.
#10.8 Gersson on 09 Jan 2009 - 23:35
dead.cell said,
I'll be sure to notify my college of that.


lol haha nice one
#11 plastikaa on 09 Jan 2009 - 10:20
Agree sorta, "Still shity!!" is maybe a little extreme, but it does still feel like a basic start and not a full browser. The very fact what the new features are, shows its youth as they are generally taken for granted in every other major browser.
(2 replies) #12 KavazovAngel on 09 Jan 2009 - 10:47
I like the simplicity of Chrome, I use it everyday in combination with Firefox (for RSS, sites with lots of ads/flash content) and IE (for MS sites)... But for it to be my only browser, it still has a long way to go.
#12.1 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:06
Agreed. It's a very nice change though. The very fact that Google has a set out list of plans for it makes me feel quite positive about it. It's only a matter of time now.
#12.2 Magallanes on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:07
I think the same but the combination firefox/ie left no room for another browser.

So,or Chrome become ie compatible (it is really unlike to happen) or eat firefox (adding add-ins such abp) or simple will become a nice browser that nobody use.
#13 Majesticmerc on 09 Jan 2009 - 11:40
So the second major version adds features that have been standard for other web-browsers for years? I'd agree with War that it does sound more like 0.2 than 2.0. I wouldn't agree however that it's "still sh*tty", all browsers have their benefits, I think Google just seems to invent their own version scheming.
#14 Glendi on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:43
I'm more concerned about Firefox 3.1 >_>
#15 tom5 on 09 Jan 2009 - 12:55
No plugin support? /--> Trash
#16 Vestat on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:21
It's really strange that we have a real 1.0 final version since less than one month and now it's alredy possible to enjoy a 2.0 beta release... but... better than waiting too much to fix the "old" chrome...
For me it's a wonderful browser: fast, quick, minimal, lets you see pages in the whole screen without bars, icons or so on... now it got also a bookmarks manager (in the 0.xx beta it hasn't...), zoom...
I bet it will be one of the most important browsers..
(1 reply) #17 LTD on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:26
For a brand new browser, its development is surging forward. Very impressive.
#17.1 Glendi on 09 Jan 2009 - 15:00
Admit, it had nothing special in the start. And now they are adding features which other browsers have had for a long time because v1 lacked some. It's not really hard to go fast this way. Other browser copy each other as well, but one of them invents something, the other copies. All of them have something unique. What's new and unique in Chrome 2 that wasn't in Chrome 1 and is not in other browsers?

We can only determine how fast they are when they start adding something special (which will obviously copied in other browsers).
#18 cork1958 on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:36
Edited:
Guess I'll edit my post as I still can't find ANYTHING positive about this thing over last version!!
#19 technikal on 09 Jan 2009 - 13:57
have to wait for SRWare Iron to whore all these features into a new version
(2 replies) #20 theyarecomingforyou on 09 Jan 2009 - 19:57
Where is the option to not keep a history? That is an absolute basic that I cannot live without. I know there is an incognito mode but that is very different. Chrome is great at rendering and looks stunning but it's missing too many basics (extension support being a big one).
#20.1 +dead.cell on 09 Jan 2009 - 20:34
lol, then don't use it?

I like it a lot, but I'm still waiting for extensions and such to become available. Until then, I'll stick with Firefox.
#20.2 theyarecomingforyou on 09 Jan 2009 - 23:35
I want to use it but obviously I can't. That was my point. I guess that went right over your head.
#21 Softland on 09 Jan 2009 - 21:54
The update sounds great, especially the "greasemonkey-like" script support, because the only thing that kept me from using only it as a browser was the lack of roboform support (me and others - http://www.roboformchrome.com/topic/robofo...r-google-chrome). We'll see if this changes anything.
#22 theyarecomingforyou on 09 Jan 2009 - 23:36
I've had all sorts of problems with it - scrollbars not working / tabs hanging, etc. Far from stable.
#23 thealexweb on 10 Jan 2009 - 12:39
Switched to this from Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 and it seems to slow and clunky. I changed back within the hour.
#24 PROGAME on 10 Jan 2009 - 13:00
i really don't get the naming scheme
why call it 2.0
it's a 1.1 version really
a lot have been achieved, but so much is still missing
(3 replies) #25 coth on 10 Jan 2009 - 18:34
does it let you to select the searching engine you want to use during installation?
#25.1 thealexweb on 11 Jan 2009 - 16:12
coth said,
does it let you to select the searching engine you want to use during installation?


Nope otherwise what would be the point of Google trying to build a search monopoly.
#25.2 coth on 11 Jan 2009 - 22:52
thealexweb said,
Nope otherwise what would be the point of Google trying to build a search monopoly.

Isn't it was google, who pushed MS to add this function to IE?
#25.3 nesl247 on 12 Jan 2009 - 05:59
You can change it when you start the browser the first time, or anytime after by going to the settings. It actually asks you if you want to set google as the default when you first start it up.
#26 Electric Bolt on 11 Jan 2009 - 04:39
I wonder if you can password-protect a profile, or use a certain key combination as a shortcut to opening 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?)