next »

[muku]

Okay, look at this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html?part=rss

It seems Chrome's JavaScript performance blows all other browsers out of the water. I think this is their main motivation for introducing a new browser. They have all these JS apps like Gmail, Google Documents etc, so having a browser which can run these much faster than the current JS implementations is a big business advantage. After all, they want to beat Microsoft Office in the browser.

Also, once websites start making use of this new JS performance by writing more demanding browser apps, all other browsers will essentially be obsolete because they won't be able to run these new web apps at a satisfying speed. Unless FF integrates this new V8 JS engine, but I don't know what the chances for this are, seeing that they just recently introduced a new JS engine of their own. So there's a certain danger here. On the other hand, in this area some competition can't hurt because I've always been disappointed with current JS performance.

[kyn]

Haha oh wow, that's what? 1000% faster than Firefox?
Jesus, that's ludicrous

[Alec]

You figure a company like Google would have at least one person assigned to making sure EULAs are worded correctly before something as huge as a browser beta goes out.  

[Alevice]

Okay, look at this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html?part=rss

It seems Chrome's JavaScript performance blows all other browsers out of the water. I think this is their main motivation for introducing a new browser. They have all these JS apps like Gmail, Google Documents etc, so having a browser which can run these much faster than the current JS implementations is a big business advantage. After all, they want to beat Microsoft Office in the browser.

Also, once websites start making use of this new JS performance by writing more demanding browser apps, all other browsers will essentially be obsolete because they won't be able to run these new web apps at a satisfying speed. Unless FF integrates this new V8 JS engine, but I don't know what the chances for this are, seeing that they just recently introduced a new JS engine of their own. So there's a certain danger here. On the other hand, in this area some competition can't hurt because I've always been disappointed with current JS performance.

Tracemonky, while not king, should be a decent enough competitor for V8. I don't know what goes for Squirrelfish, however.

[Alevice]

Also, for personal stuff at work, Chrome will be my browser of choice. Goddamn, it is smooth, despite not having extensions. Firefox+Firebug+FirePHP will still be king for me while developing apps.

[Corpus]

That's pretty much just saying that google can display your stuff in their browser and translate/cache/whatever it in their search engines, though, isn't it?

[Gnarf]

It sort of sounds like they've slapped some regular Google kind of EULA onto it. Since the whole thing makes a little sense in the context of most of their other products, where you're actually submitting content to Google. Unless Chrome is actually phoning home all the content you're submitting to all kinds of completely-unrelated-to-Google things, the whole thing seems fairly meaningless. If it did anything of that sort, that in itself would be a far bigger issue than whatever the EULA says. Though we could still just grab the source and remove the evil bits.

I'm not really sure what we're supposed to be worrying about here. Whatever the EULA says, if the content we're submitting with Chrome is not sent off to Google, and if there's no way to tell it apart from content submitted with IE or whatever, then it can't really be used for anything no matter what it really means. Is there something I'm missing here?

[Cheater‽]

Okay, look at this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html?part=rss

It seems Chrome's JavaScript performance blows all other browsers out of the water.
[snip]

Uh, maybe not?. I'm gonna run my own now.

[Alevice]

Everyone and their mothers seems to make their own benchmarks that usually can differ quite wildly, even when testing the same type of things, dunno why.

[Alevice]

eula has changed http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html

[kyn]

God bless

[Dacke]

I was getting worried I would like it better than FF, but it turns out I really dislike it! Boy what a relief!

[Core Xii]

I am looking into adblocking and mouse gestures for chrome right now, and if I can get these things to work as well as in Firefox, I am totally switching.

All that trouble just for the slight speed increase? No thanks, I'll just stick to Firefox.

[KennEH!]

At the moment Firefox has more support, and doesn't take all of my resources so I'll stick with it and maybe wait to see what happens with chrome.

[FoxBlitzz]

I'm not using Google Chrome until they can get it to stop sucking up all my resources. Random CPU spikes and constant hard-drive read/writes are not indicative of a "low-profile" browser. One person is even getting over 500MB RAM usage just from viewing the PHP manual! Serious!

http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/warning-google-chrome-browser-has-serious-memory-cpu-issues/

Even when they do fix the issues, I'm not going to use it as my main browser. I want an options screen that has more than two entries, because I care about being able to customize my software. I don't want it simplified to an "On-Off" switch because I'm smart enough to know what "Keep my history for 90 days" means. It means it will keep my history for 90 days. And if I were to exclude the titlebar from my Firefox setup, then it would actually manage space more efficiently than Chrome, while still giving me access to what I want.

Among other things, I disagree with the merging of the search and address bars. When I want to search for a YouTube video, I want to tell it that I'm specifically looking for a YouTube video in order to provide more relevant results, and have it pull up a list of matches on the site. If it's only going to give me an "I'm Feeling Lucky" guess, then it's completely worthless.

[Powergloved Andy]

I think I'm going to stick to firefox. I haven't tried chrome, and I know google is an epic company, but I love my firefox and I love my extentions. I'm afraid to switch browsers, honestly! 

[Atnas]

I like Chrome much better than Firefox, but I did have some extensions like a calculator and simple mail on the status bar I don't feel whole without.

A few more clicks is a small price to pay for how fast and dependable Chrome is over firefox though. My computer never played nice with Firefox anyway, the odds of a new tab restarting my computer were frightening.

But let's all look forward to plugins!

[shinygerbil]

I was getting worried I would like it better than FF, but it turns out I really dislike it! Boy what a relief!

Heh, same here but with Opera.

Honestly, I wish more people would give Opera a spin. It really is a fantastic and innovative browser.

[Lucaz]

I tried it. It's okay, I guess. I'll sitck with Firefox. It was a bit slow, and had glitches when writing.

Also tried opera, and it was really good, the only thign that keeps it behind FF is the FF search bar. I hate search windows, they are so intrusive and unefficient.

[december]

I thought in Opera the main window was the search.  You just click on the page and start typing and it starts searching.