Download Google Chrome 4.0 Beta - 400% More Performance over v1.0

By Ci7
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Ci7

Posted
Posted

A new release of Google Chrome 4.0 is now available for download, full build string 4.0.223.16. Loyal to a Cloud-tailored mantra of simplicity and performance, Google has kicked up a notch its open source browser, revealing the first Beta development milestone of version 4.0. Ahead of the November 2nd launch of Google Chrome 4.0 Beta, version 4.0 was offered exclusively through the Mountain View search giant's developer channel. This is no longer the case. With the unveiling of the Beta Build 4.0.223.16, Google is now offering Chrome 4.0 to the public.

However, not all users will be able to install the release. Version 4.0.223.16 is Windows only, Google informed, giving no indications as to any future plans to offer Chrome 4.0 for users of Linux and Mac OS X platforms as well. In this regard, early adopters looking to start test driving Google Chrome 4.0 Beta will need to do it on Windows XP SP2, and SP3, Vista RTM/SP1/SP2 and Windows 7.

"The Beta Channel is being updated to 4.0.223.16 which is our first Beta release for 4.0. This release includes many bug fixes and for the first time Bookmark Sync is enabled. Extensions are disabled until the final API changes arrive. Please use the dev channel for the latest extension API," revealed Jonathan Conradt, Engineering Program Manager.

One aspect of Google Chrome's evolution that is also characteristic of version 4.0 Beta, is the added horsepower introduced by the Mountain View search giant. Google's Idan Avraham and Anton Muhin, Software Engineers, explained that Google Chrome 4.0 Beta delivers 400% more performance compared to Chrome 1.0, and 30% more over Chrome 3.0 Stable (according to Mozilla's Dromeao DOM Core Tests).

Google Chrome bookmark sync is a new feature introduced with version 4.0 Beta, with a self-explanatory moniker. Google Chrome 4.0 Beta allows users to synchronize bookmarks across multiple devices that are running v4.0 of the open source browser. The synchronization is done in the Google Cloud, more specifically, the XMPP-based servers for Google Talk.

source

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted

All browser vendors seem to shout on how much faster their browsers are getting these days, but for me its all filler and no killer. Although Chrome has definitely came a long way since its initial release, it does amaze me to see what Google consider enough changes to merit a 1.0 jump in version number

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
Is it just me or does google release new versions of Chrome twice a week?

It's a little complicated...

Google Chrome 2.x - still considered the stable, "official" builds. Updates are usually limited to security fixes, etc.

Google Chrome 3.x - considered the "beta" channel. Releases are more frequent but less stable. This is most equivalent to running Mozilla's Minefield builds.

Google Chrome 4.x - the "developer" channel, and is bleeding-edge. Releases are usually nightly and often contain features as soon as they're written but not really well-tested. Stuff released here eventually moves down into 3.x and 2.x builds.

There is also Chromium, which seems to basically be a permanent 4.x branch that auto-updates every 24 hours or so and has a different icon.

Grand Master

Ci7

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's a little complicated...

Google Chrome 2.x - still considered the stable, "official" builds. Updates are usually limited to security fixes, etc.

Google Chrome 3.x - considered the "beta" channel. Releases are more frequent but less stable. This is most equivalent to running Mozilla's Minefield builds.

Google Chrome 4.x - the "developer" channel, and is bleeding-edge. Releases are usually nightly and often contain features as soon as they're written but not really well-tested. Stuff released here eventually moves down into 3.x and 2.x builds.

There is also Chromium, which seems to basically be a permanent 4.x branch that auto-updates every 24 hours or so and has a different icon.

and i thought Google Chrome 3 was released a like 2 months ago ?

and also

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted
and i thought Google Chrome 3 was released a like 2 months ago ?

and also

Yea, Google Chrome 3 was released a while back. Google Chrome 4 has been primarily dev channel for a while, and only just went Beta for Windows apparently.

Veteran

tuckeratlarge

Posted
Posted
All browser vendors seem to shout on how much faster their browsers are getting these days

I know it's pathetic...

OOOh our browser starts in 10 seconds compared to your pedestrian 12. So what.

OOOh our browser renders pages in 200ms compared to your rather lathargic 250ms - again so what.

Speed is nice but today all the browsers are faster than webpages can download so rendering speed is irrelevant... features is where it's at.

Which ever browser has the features I want/need - Firefox at the moment - is the browser I will use even if over the course of a evenings surfing I may have taken 5 minutes longer.

When Google Chrome, nice as it is to look at, gets extensions or built in functionality of the possible extensions, then I may take a look. However I am lazy and as long as Firefox doesn't start crashing or corrupting my stuff, then I am loathe to change. I only changed from IE to Firefox because of the functionality.

Grand Master

Shadrack

Posted
Posted
All browser vendors seem to shout on how much faster their browsers are getting these days, but for me its all filler and no killer. Although Chrome has definitely came a long way since its initial release, it does amaze me to see what Google consider enough changes to merit a 1.0 jump in version number

I've noticed the whole "faster browser" statement is being thrown around a lot too. I use Firefox and Chrome, both of which have boasted improvements in rendering speeds over the past couple of years. Honestly, I can't tell a difference in browser speeds from 3 years ago to today.

Veteran

ahmz

Posted
Posted

I switched from Fx to Chrome this week because of how sluggish browsing with Fx was becoming. I'm currently using a Dev build of Chrome which has extensions enabled and so far I've adjusted to the change, and am much happier with the browser speed.

Veteran

tuckeratlarge

Posted
Posted
I used to use Google chrome until I learned about how Google rapes the persons privacy. Now I use firefox and scroogle.com for my searches

nice

Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
I used to use Google chrome until I learned about how Google rapes the persons privacy. Now I use firefox and scroogle.com for my searches

a warning that scroogle is not work safe would have been nice.

Grand Master

Growled Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted
However, not all users will be able to install the release. Version 4.0.223.16 is Windows only, Google informed...

How does Google plan to keep Chrome updated on their ChromeOS, which is Linux based, if they can't get out dev versions for it?

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted
I've noticed the whole "faster browser" statement is being thrown around a lot too. I use Firefox and Chrome, both of which have boasted improvements in rendering speeds over the past couple of years. Honestly, I can't tell a difference in browser speeds from 3 years ago to today.

Yep. Despite how Safari performs in tests, I tried it for a couple of weeks on Windows, and in real world usage it never seemed faster than Opera. Personally I think a lot of vendors tailor their browsers to tests just to make their numbers look more impressive than they actually are in normal usage.

Grand Master

ichi

Posted
Posted
How does Google plan to keep Chrome updated on their ChromeOS, which is Linux based, if they can't get out dev versions for it?

Not sure what's the issue with Chrome on Linux and OSX, but there's Chromium which is like.. exactly the same but without branding? :huh: (and apparently faster than it's Windows/OSX counterparts).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2 to finally get one of the most requested features

      By sphbecker · Posted

      If you don't care to read what I said, then you prove my point. Maybe written media is beyond your attention span. Titles are not summaries my friend.
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By +Nik Louch · Posted

      Nobody asked... in fact, I said "I don't care about political leanings"  
    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2 to finally get one of the most requested features

      By Elliot B. · Posted

      TLDR. Here is a far better title (just a basic example): Windows 11 26H2 to allow disabling Web search results
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By Dan~ · Posted

      Restore will get my vote, only if to see if things are any different, doubt it though but Labour and Conservatives too out of touch and same thing over and over and over…, Lib Dem who?
    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2 to finally get one of the most requested features

      By sphbecker · Posted

      There is nothing wrong with this title. You have completely missed the plot when it comes to "clickbait." The issue was never that a title tries to entice you to click, that is how titles have worked for over 100 years. The issue is when the title subverts expectations, getting you to click expecting something that isn't there. The classic clickbait example is "Boyfriend caught cheating, what happens next will shock you," then what happened next is the girlfriend was upset...which is probably the least shocking outcome imaginable. If sounds like what you want is for the titles to be a collection of 10-word summaries that you can skim, get the just of the story, and only click if you want more details. That is not, never has been, and never will be what titles are. You can go all the way back to print newspapers during the great depression and see the same thing. The newspaper was locked in a vending machine, all you can see is the headline, you choose to put in 5¢ to buy the paper and read the rest if you want. Those headlines were written in a way to sell the paper, not just to provide a summery. Here are two actual headlines from that time, "Wall Street Lays an Egg," or "Stocks Hit Bottom?" Maybe you'd say something like "it was wrong then and it's still wrong now." Okay, fine opinion to have, but it isn't like Neowin is doing something unjurnalistic, they are just following the age-old standards for written media.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      mnsgroup earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      525
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      199
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      94
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      neufuse
      67
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!