Google Announces Chrome: Some Thoughts

Not even Gecko-based.

I view that as a plus, actually. It's also an interesting indication of potentially more Google-Apple collaboration. Apple is already a significant (the significant) contributor to Webkit development. It will certainly help Safari, too, if Google begins advancing and developing for the Webkit project.

And I don't know if I love the idea of multiple tabs each taking up their own process. It sounds like it'll slow down the entire system.

I'll be interested to see how this works in practice, but I actually used to do something similar with IE when I worked at a helpdesk. Our ticketing system was web-based, only supported in IE, and occasionally would cause IE to lock up (ugh). In IE under Windows it's possible to spawn multiple IE windows each with their own process, and I would do this so that if the ticketing window locked up, it wouldn't affect my other tools or my browsing windows.

So there are benefits to spawning an individual process for some tasks. I have to wonder if it might also aid multi-core processor systems until better processor management at the OS level comes along.

For what it's worth, Safari also offers private browsing. Though, turning on private browsing is just as good as telling your wife that you were looking at porn the night before.

That's why God gave us individual user accounts, Brian.

LOL! In my case, this computer is MINE... let the rest of the family get their own. Hehehe.

I'm excited at the possibilities this may provide Google (and AdSense affiliates) in the future. They've long needed to integrate their various apps (the successful experiments from Labs) into a utilitarian-design social network of their own. And they've got the energy and data centers to do it well, I think.

They are building for the future. If each has its own process, then in a future of complex web applications, you do not have a lot of slow apps since each gets a fair shot at the processor and the browser does not have to delegate anything if there is concurrent processes going on.

Multicore future and all.

maybe google will do something totally crazy and include a python interpreter too, then maybe push it to be a web standard so all browsers will include it.

I don't get it. Google has the greatest relationships ever with Firefox... then they build their own. Why not patch or something? Not even Gecko-based.

According to the comic book, existing browsers were written back when the web was about static pages. By starting from scratch, they are able code for a more dynamic web without worrying about a lot of legacy code and old ways of doing things. A patch is just slapping some more code on an already creaky and outdated system.

According to the comic book, existing browsers were written back when the web was about static pages. By starting from scratch, they are able code for a more dynamic web without worrying about a lot of legacy code and old ways of doing things. A patch is just slapping some more code on an already creaky and outdated system.

Yeah, that statement is a bit disingenuous. First off at their core is Webkit - so it is not like they have written their own fresh out of the box rendering engine. One of their developers is Ben Goodger who was the lead developer of Firefox.

Switch? Doing what? Watching porn or submitting NV seeds?

If you don't want google to pay attention to what your doing you can opt out - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html - it won't opt you out of everything, obviously, but perhaps it will give you a bit more peace of mind.

Honestly, I'm not a privacy nut or more specifically I operate with the notion if I don't secure that data I'm put out - it isn't private. I'm just expecting the privacy nuts to jump on it. Thanks for the link though.

I wonder how it compares to/relates to the Javascript revamp for Firefox.

Well, you can download it now and check it out yourself. It's blazingly fast. (I'm running it right now - no problems yet.)

I took a look at it briefly. I suppose it is faster. Can't compare it to Tracemonkey though since it isn't coming till FF3.1 (supposedly in a week or two).

Yeah, I'm looking forward to tracemonkey as well. I am assuming some of the dynamic optimization features within V8 are similar in concept, and should result in similar speed increases in Firefox as well.

It is going to need to more than that. It really needs to come up with something that changes the way we surf on a more or less fundamental level. The last real innovation in this department was tabbed browsing. That has only allowed to Firefox to make modest inroads in market share.

Opera reportedly has as robust a plug-in system as Firefox and they haven't gotten anywhere. If Chrome is going to succeed it is going to need offer something to people that makes them feel that they are missing out using anything else.

In a company full of web developers, you would think they would be screaming for a good plug-in architecture so they can have the tools they use in their work.

Opera does NOT have as robust a plugin system as firefox. They have a widget system which, imho, is not comperable to the plugin system of firefox.

Personally, if I find that Chrome is more stable than FF3 is for me then I'll switch. Firefox on a large resolution screen, with mutiple monitors, sometimes won't repaint properly for me, especially after any prolonged browsing. I don't like having to restart my entire browser. Mozilla isn't working on that particular problem (and I can't imagine being the one who is tasked with it, it looks like a tough bug to squash) so I'll use whatever works better for me.

Also, if Chrome happens to be faster in rendering and processing javascript (which it should be since they are basically compiling the javascript on page load) then that will be a nice bonus as well.

I have the same experience with FF3 after long periods of browsing, developing websites, etc.

And yes, I'm curious to see how much faster Newsvine is on Chrome, in all of its AJAX-y wonderfulness, vs. Firefox - I think this site will actually be a decent test.

That's actually one thing that keeps driving me back to Safari: the rendering speed of Newsvine in the browser. FF3 is better than FF2 was, but it's still not really comparable, especially if you do like I do and open multiple background tabs at a time off of the conversation tracker.

@finalcut: drag your "submit story link" (sic) button to your bookmark toolbar after deleting the default bookmarks, making room for your favorite bookmarking buttons

For Christ's sake, the company logo consists of the company name written in a terrible font using all four primary colors with an ugly drop shadow and cheesy shading effects..

Er ... I thought there were only three primary colors?

Roy, yea there are, but there are two different sets of primary colors, each differing by one. The primary colors of painting are Red, Yellow and Blue, while the three primary colors of light are Red, Green and Blue. Notice that Google's logo has a full set of both primary color sets, two reds, two blues and one each of yellow and green.

The primary colors of painting are Red, Yellow and Blue, ...

RYB (red, yellow, and blue) is a historical set of subtractive primary colors. It is primarily used in art and art education, particularly painting. It predates modern scientific color theory.

Thanks. Now I understand why old-time artists hate Photoshop. I learn something new every day!

By the way, I do agree ... the logo is rather garish.

Personally, I don't want a flashy browser. Nor do I expect it from Google. I expect it to be simply organized, which is mostly what almost every Google product I've used is about. Ease of use. This why their search engine page is basically blank, while others try to compete by beefing up, and effectively slowing down searching.

I would expect that there will eventually be a expansive plug-in architecture, but not off the bat. The one thing that comes to mind is the open-ness of Chrome. I think beyond Firefox's plug-ins, I think what makes it excel is the open source factor. Updates are released much quicker, plus this allows for more advanced plug-ins because of being able to inspect how the browser works internally.

Ultimately, as many have said above, I think it's success really depends on the plug-in abilities.

Roy, yea there are, but there are two different sets of primary colors, each differing by one. The primary colors of painting are Red, Yellow and Blue, while the three primary colors of light are Red, Green and Blue. Notice that Google's logo has a full set of both primary color sets, two reds, two blues and one each of yellow and green.

Yeah, that's what I was going for. :P

Personally, I don't want a flashy browser. Nor do I expect it from Google. I expect it to be simply organized, which is mostly what almost every Google product I've used is about. Ease of use.

Yeah, but it'd still be nice if the buttons were pretty. Look at the difference between google.com and live.com. They're both equally simplistic in that their central features are a search bar with prominently featured "special search" options (images, video, etc.), but Microsoft's site is gorgeous whereas Google's looks like it was designed by a 14-year-old who just read through an online "How to Write HTML" tutorial. I dunno, I'm under 25, I have the right to be shallow about how my computer interfaces look. :P

My only concern is for the visual aesthetics.

From what I gather from reading the comic, the idea is to take the browser out of the experience. Make everybody forget they are even using a browser.

Personally, I don't want a flashy browser. Nor do I expect it from Google. I expect it to be simply organized, which is mostly what almost every Google product I've used is about. Ease of use.

Yeah, but it'd still be nice if the buttons were pretty. ...... I dunno, I'm under 25, I have the right to be shallow about how my computer interfaces look. :P

Try dragging some of your social bookmarking "submit" buttons to your sparse toolbar...amazing!!!

but Microsoft's site is gorgeous whereas Google's looks like it was designed by a 14-year-old who just read through an online "How to Write HTML" tutorial.

They were a bit older than 14, but Serge and Brin did not know HTML, so that is essentially what happened.

i think the cartoon made it pretty obvious there is already some sort of plugin architecture which is why plugins are treated special and also run in their own process. (they also live with a different security model)

Oh there's still plenty of time left in the day. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go click "reload" on www.google.com/chrome, as I have been doing every 5 minutes since 6am :P

I want Python!

Thats OK Myk I noticed that, I am not usually in the habit of posting exploits, I guess I should just link to a way to check for them, Search term "Download - Goolag Scanner"

or do you have a vested interest in this.

if you are using adsense I recommend that you check to see that no one is hijacking your revenue stream.

But as we both know these back door exploits are almost never caused by accidental bad code, they are there for a reason.

Hope all checks out OK for you. If you are a Mac user, Little snitch would have already alerted you to these. (StatsUploader wants to talk to dc-in-f99.google.com every 30 odd minutes so.) The input manager loads code into every app targeted by google. It also loads other code. Why google would want to get its hooks into spotlight I do not know, but I would avoid using all google apps especially google desktops, now this virtualized browser is out. Give it some time, check the boards and wait and see if it crashes finder.

That was kinda my point earlier. You gotta give people a reason to switch, no browser will be everything for all people, so you need a healthy extension community, of which Chrome is starting with nothing.

Actually it going to need more than that. To really get people to switch it needs to fundamentally change the way we interact with web content. Chrome doesn't do that. My guess it that it will capture more market share than Opera, but not Firefox.

I also predict that the fanciest features not already available in FF soon will be.

I dunno. Lighter and faster with good to great rendering ability and fast javascript (and with plug ins) is a recipe for success.

Uh huh. Firefox and Opera have both been regaled for being faster and lighter, they even have the advantage of a fundamental change with tabbed browsing. Yet IE is still the dominant browser. Furthermore in terms of market share Chrome actually shoots itself in the foot because it looks different from the others. Sadly the average user likes things the way they are use to on a computer. I have the hardest time getting people just to use Firefox because it looks different from IE and it isn't as radical a departure as Chrome.

I will concede that being back by Google is a wildcard factor in that may allow it to surpass Firefox in terms of market share (although not until they have an extension system). Overall though I think Chrome will not change much except for improvements in browsers overall (which isn't a bad thing and may even be the point Chrome).

Right now my biggest interest is in how their javascript compares to FF's Tracemonkey project and if that will do anything for speed comparisons.

I think the first "extensions" should be all of the Google apps, such that I don't have to install a Google Notebook extension, and it should be built-in and recognize that I already have logins to many Google apps, and add them automatically (iGoogle is not the same thing at all).

FD,

I am really not talking about the unwashed masses more than I am about the tech geeks.

I have been using for Chrome now for most of my web hurricaning; other than my small problem on my end with corrupted fonts, Chrome has been a very pleasing experience.

I really don't see it being used as a traditional web browser with the extensions and add-ons, rather I see it as a vehicle for those needing speed and security in their web experience. For example, I have been posting comments here and there on the web to test its speed comparing this to FF3, Flock2, IE7. After pressing the submit button in Chrome, she-bang, my comment is posted, unlike FF3, Flock2 and IE7, where I've ended up opening my other browsers while waiting.

FDBrany3 said:

Yet IE is still the dominant browser.

While this statement, and your statement about the comfort-ability factor of a browser. I think the biggest factor to why IE still is the dominant browser is because it is what is included, and the default browser in Windows. Many people do not even know about Firefox because it is not the default browser on almost any OS. Even though most Linux distributions include Firefox on default install, most still use Konqueror (or the GNOME equivalent, I've never used GNOME, so I don't know if it's the same default browser.) Also, Linux is not the mainstream as Windows is.

There are many factors that bring a browser, or even a competitive program to the forefront. I think that main factor is immediate availability. I know many people that don't even know that there are other browsers besides Internet Explorer.

I think Chrome is on the right track, so far. From my playing around with it, I find it does load many pages a lot quicker. I've noticed a couple websites, that use mod_rewrite Apache module, that Chrome does not play nice with (flat out don't load any code). This will obviously be fixed as time goes on.

If Google can implement a very open-wide, vast, and easy-to-use extension system as though Firefox has, improve upon rendering, and actually change the way people think about browsers, they have a very good shot.

As you pointed out, being that it is backed by Google, I think it has a very good chance of at least making a run for it if they can show people that there's a very good reason for the average person to switch. The average computer user is the biggest market share they can have. And, that's who they mainly needs to target. But, at the same time, with what Firefox has done, show the advanced user that there is a even better reason to switch for them. Not only making it easy for the average, but make it easy for advanced users to expand upon the browser to make it suit their needs.

Lighter and faster with good to great rendering ability and fast javascript (and with plug ins) is a recipe for success.

Coming back to this point. Right now every one is all impress with its speed against current releases but I've already seeded articles testing it against FF3.1. The conclusion being FF3.1 closes that gap. Ars.technica has an article saying Tracemonkey is faster than Chrome. Lifehacker has also found that FF 3.1 in memory.

Ultimately, I think a lot of geeks will look at Chrome and play with it for a bit, and then move back to what they are comfortable with.

Agreed. I already have. It's not "feature-packed" as of yet, so I have no reason to look at it. It's "cool.. fast browsing.. cool history page.." and you're basically done.

Not quite done. I like being able to click on my Twitter link (on the Start menu, or the desktop, or the Quick Launch bar) and my twitter update window pops up instantly, like it was waiting for me instead of me waiting for Firefox to load. This may not seem like such a big deal at this early stage... wait and see what happens with that. It's like bringing web apps to the desktop, but not tying them there and not being responsible for upgrades to those apps.

Didn't work as in it was nonfunctional? Or didn't work for you as in, not your cup of tea?

Didn't work as in I'm on a Mac ;-)

Which is a shame, because I think Mac users are far more likely than Windows users to choose the best browser, not just the one that came with the OS by default.

Which is a shame, because I think Mac users are far more likely than Windows users to choose the best browser, not just the one that came with the OS by default.

Yeah, but even disregarding the "average" end-users, there are still a lot more tech-savvy Windows users than there are Mac users in the universe. ;)

Yeah, but even disregarding the "average" end-users, there are still a lot more tech-savvy Windows users than there are Mac users in the universe. ;)

I simply don't get this comment. Perhaps it's made with the hope that I'll froth in the mouth, but instead I'll simply ask:

Why do you think that and how do you support it?

Brian, I think he means that even if you consider every Mac user to be tech-savvy, just because there are shear number more Windows users than Mac users, there are probably more tech-savvy Windows users.

Does that make sense?

I think any truly tech savvy individual owns all three OSs and uses them all.

Adam, exactly. It's the same reason you're better off taking 1% of $1,000,000 rather than 99% of $10,000.

Behind My Screen: I don't think so. :P

I consider myself pretty tech-savvy, but I only use Linux, and Windows. I don't have the money to purchase a Mac, nor do I want. I dual-boot, Linux for the main desktop, and use Windows for gaming/anything I can't do on Linux (which anymore, is a very short list. It's mainly games holding me back from full-blown Linux.)

Then you are a poser :-)

You have the money. You can buy a mini.

I have no reason to buy a Mac. They're very good computers, and have their perks. But, at the end of the day, there's nothing that I can't do on my Linux machine, that you can do on Mac. (Minus gaming.. but I already have the problem solved.) :)

If you mean SquirrelFish, WebKit's new Javascript VM, no, it's using its own open source Javascript VM called "V8".

I guess I do mean squirrelfish. I wonder where I got spiceweasel from? Hmmm...

I think that is what was used as a pepper grinder in some animated movie. They yanked on the weasel and spice came out its nose onto the food.

Nope, I don't remember either of those - but I'd love to see a squirrelfish vs V8 battle :)

Right.. Futurama when they went to that resturaunt that was satiring Emirl.