Chrome

[straycat]

So.... the huge news today on the web front is that Google have just released a beta version of their not-really-awaited-in-the-slightest new web browser, Chrome.

Whoopydo. Yet another browser. Big deal.

But - actually trying it, and I have to say, it seems very, very good. Very fast, very slick, extremely well thought out - it feels so so so much nicer than IE7, Firefox, Safari...

I really am impressed - if first impressions are anything to go by, this could well become my browser of choice. If nothing else, I think/hope/pray that it lights a fire under the backsides of other browser developers (MS/Mozilla/Apple - I'm looking at you...)

Download here (http://tools.google.com/chrome/)if curious. Windows only for now, but other platforms are on the way, they say...

[clevedonboy]

I've downloaded it to test our websites in. Seems ok but not revolutionary at first glance. It does seem to work well with our heavy Javascript pages though (something that Opera has problems with). The no menubar approach is going to upset some people I'm sure.

Interestingly when I loaded IE this morning, the MS page loaded offering the chance to run IE8 Beta - what a coincidence

[bigdjiver]

Chrome ? :doh: I would have hoped that the makers of the foremost search engine would have chosen a unique searchable name.

[David Franklin]

? :doh: I would have hoped that the makers of the foremost search engine would have chosen a unique searchable name.More to the point, way back in 1998, Microsoft had some web "technology" called Chrome:


Microsoft is preparing to release the second beta release of its new multimedia graphics tool, code-named "Chrome," to private beta testers. Chrome--once thought to be part of Internet Explorer 5.0--is actually a "data visualization tool" that can be added on to Windows 98 or Windows NT 5.0.

As with many Microsoft "here, let us define a new web standard" efforts, it sucked. I remember seeing them exhibit it at Siggraph to general suspicion and apathy. It was killed off by 1999.

So at least for me, "Chrome" has somewhat negative resonances as a name for a web-browser.

[JiveLad]

Just a quick question on Chrome: does it have a facility to import your 'Favourites' from IE?

[JCB]

I just downloaded Chrome, and it offered to import favourites from IE or Firefox. I asked it to use my Firefox bookmarks. It seems to have worked, because here I am, via Chrome!
V.

[JiveLad]

Yes - it seems stable and 'clean'. I will continue with it for now.

And the importing just happened automatically - easy - although it needed some rearranging.

Don't seem to be able to customise the toolbar so much like you can in IE - and how do you switch off the spell check (or is that the Forum s/ware?)

[Beowulf]

Yes - it seems stable and 'clean'.

:yeah:

but I'll stick to Flock for the time being. (not easy to open other browser windows on my pda so no link but just google it ;) )

[pmjd]

The EULA for Chrome does look a bit dodgy (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/)

In essence anything you upload via Chrome can be used by Google as they please

EDIT
Looks like they did a very bad copy and paste of another EULA and have now changed it (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html)

[philsmove]

Don’t know why, but I get slightly fuzzy fonts

So it’s back to IE

[straycat]

Well - so far for me, it's a slightly mixed bag.

Good things:
it's FAST!!! A lot faster than Firefox, and makes IE7 look like a slug.
Renders most sites perfectly.
(mostly) great implementation of Javascript - it runs my current project flawlessly, and that's saying something (we're talking thousands of lines of JS code).
Love the interface - especially the ability to drag tabs out of and into windows.
Love the developer tools - they need a few more bells and whistles to compete with Firebug, but they're not far from it.

Bad things:
It doesn't get on well with Facebook. It doesn't get on well at all...
Sometimes, despite the vaunted one-tab-per-process, it can still get a bit sluggish (especially with a lot of tabs open)
Zero Day Exploit. :WetHaddock:

Anyway - I'm sticking with it for now. Hope the Mac version follows on soon...

[ducasi]

I'm reversing judgement until I get a chance to use it, but from what I have seen...

Quite a few of the new "features" are already in other browsers (or in development.)

I like the idea of one process per tab/window, as I'm sick of sluggish performance while background tabs load stuff in Safari.

I don't know how this will work on a Mac or Linux, or how "no menu bar" will work on the Mac.

I look forward though to giving it a go. If nothing else, it will continue to grow the presence of the WebKit rendering engine, which will be good for all the other people who use it.

[JiveLad]

Well after a few days of using Chrome - I like it a lot.....the points from experience (which may help others (note I am not a techie so this is 'simple' stuff):

1. The install was easy and smooth.

2. The importing of my favourites from IE worked fine - and I was pleased that just happened as part of the install.

3. I like the way it creates a page of your most used sites - and you can always go to that by pressing the '+' tab.

4. It has been rock solid stable - ie zero crashes (compared to increasingly frequent crashes in IE).

5. It is quite hard to get out of the habit of using IE and I think I will take it off the Taskbar (I use XP) to 'force' this.

6. Having multiple tabs/pages open (is that like FireFox - I seem to remember) works great for me. For some reason when I used Firefox many aeons ago it wasn't this easy or intuitive.

7. The only 'Option' I set was to 'Always show the bookmarks bar' - apart from that, I am using it as installed.

8. I haven't really used the 'Omni-find' facility (or whatever it is called) - but when I did, it worked just fine.

9. Speed is noticeably faster than IE. Ok - you may not be able to sense it on one visit - but it is the overall impression you get.

10. The simplicity of the toolbar suits me fine - nothing missing for me. Maybe it would be nice to customise to have a bigger Back button for example.

So, all in all, I give it a big thumbs up. :clap:

[Lory]

A word of advice.. Do NOT use CHROME for booking flights with RYANAIR!

Ryanair's booking system is not compatible with Chrome, although they don't think to tell you that 'anywhere' on their website. :banghead:

You have to call them, be held in a queue for 15minutes, to immediately be asked what server you're using and then told, no it won't work, use Internet explorer! :banghead::banghead:

[geoff332]

A word of advice.. Do NOT use CHROME for booking flights with RYANAIR!That's yet another reason to not use Ryanair.

Chrome is one of the most standards-compliant browsers out there. If a site doesn't handle it, it's badly designed. Personally, I'd tell them that.

Chrome has weaknesses, but it's major strength is speed. It's rendoring speed for HTML and execution speed for javascript is phenonmenal. A bunch of sites don't work on other browsers simple because they are not fast enough to handle the code.

If you want to see what a good browser can do, it's worth looking at http://www.chromeexperiments.com/. This is standard HTML and javascript, but most browsers are simple not good enough to handle it.

[Lory]

That's yet another reason to not use Ryanair.I'd so love to have a choice but unfortunately they're the only ones who fly from Luton or Stansted to San Javier. :rolleyes:


Personally, I'd tell them that.

I did.. :rofl:

[geoff332]

I'd so love to have a choice but unfortunately they're the only ones who fly from Luton or Stansted to San Javier. :rolleyes:


Chrome is one of the most standards-compliant browsers out there. If a site doesn't handle it, it's badly designed.
I would like to point out all my typos in the previous post were mojito induced.