Google Chrome The new web browser beta
#1
Posted 04 September 2008 - 10:48 AM
#2
Posted 04 September 2008 - 12:36 PM
#3
Posted 04 September 2008 - 12:37 PM
#4
Posted 04 September 2008 - 09:46 PM
#5
Posted 05 September 2008 - 05:22 AM
I'm surprised Adobe/Macromedia hasn't made their own browser yet.
#6
Posted 05 September 2008 - 06:17 AM
#7
Posted 05 September 2008 - 09:24 AM
#8
Posted 05 September 2008 - 01:38 PM
#9
Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:08 PM
#10
Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:24 PM
#11
Posted 06 September 2008 - 10:02 AM
Don't like the design of the tab bar that much. But the features are quite good.
Seriously, these features rock.
#12
Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:20 PM
Omg, comparing it to IE and everything in this is so much better to use. I cannot wait for the full release.
#13
Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:24 PM
[EDIT] Found it under Options. I don't know why it isn't default though.
#15
Posted 07 September 2008 - 04:31 AM
#17
Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:25 PM
...Then again, I may just wait for the full release. That may be better.
#18
Posted 07 September 2008 - 01:11 PM
I was expecting something more safari-like up there.
#20
Posted 07 September 2008 - 02:04 PM
Functionality on chrome is awesome. It's just a design flaw.
O, and the bugs.
#21
Posted 07 September 2008 - 03:12 PM
Saturos Striker, on Sep 7 2008, 03:04 PM, said:
Functionality on chrome is awesome. It's just a design flaw.
O, and the bugs.
Then perhaps I made the right decision by waiting for the full version...perhaps they'll have those bugs fixed by then.
#22
Posted 07 September 2008 - 08:26 PM
#23
Posted 09 September 2008 - 05:47 PM
This is an article that talks about both FireFox's and Chrome's HTML rendering engines (Gecko and WebKit epectively), and how FireFox 3 is now even more efficient than Safari (which is a very light-weight and sucky browser, and also uses WebKit).
Anyway, it has soe technical mumbo-jumbo, but most of it is pretty straight foreward and easy to follow.
#24
Posted 12 December 2008 - 03:49 AM
The guys at Google are kidding themselves, the program still lacks dozens of the basic functions which are standard in modern browsers, not to mention that in the jump from 0.4 to 1.0 the program still feels exactly the same.
Furthermore...
Quote
i like chrome, it is light years from firefox and IE, think about the multithreaded design, is very nice and clean!
it can use a dual core capabilities! and even quadri cores are used (1 thread for the browser, 1 thread for the flash plugin and 1 thread for each tab )
the minimal style is what i like, and the pop up blocking is heavenly perfect!
the v8 engine is an example of clever programming techniques!
so i'm happy that finally this masterpiece of software is out of beta, because was a beta better than many other stable software.
anyway a beta differs from a stable release only for the stability! not for the features!
the features can be added with future releases!
i feel chrome more stable than firefox at this point, there is some glitch around but nothing major!
go up chrome team ! you deserve it !
really you bring something fresh on the computer industry! and this is global crysis time!
ps: some ideas...
when i push the arrow back button, firefox usually is more responsive! fix that please ;-)
#25
Posted 12 December 2008 - 10:21 AM
IE gives me ****loads of pop-ups, dont like the firefox interface and I would use safari if I could be ****ed to download it.
#26
Posted 12 December 2008 - 07:15 PM
And the guy in Split's quote is a ***. Seriously, who even needs multi-threaded web browsing? Aside from people who have a thousand something tabs open, I don't see any use for it. Even the lowliest of dual cores can handle multi-tabbed web browsing with ease.
If you want a speed increase, push for a faster rendering engine, or get a faster connection.
Besides all of that, like Split said, it's still lacking a lot of features. Plus, I don't like the UI.
#27
Posted 12 December 2008 - 07:29 PM
#28
Posted 12 December 2008 - 08:03 PM
#30
Posted 13 December 2008 - 04:39 PM
#32
Posted 14 December 2008 - 11:13 PM
'Course, you probably don't have a socket 775 system either.