Google Chrome 7.0.503.0 beta

The Google Chrome beta has jumped another whole version number again, while remaining essentially the same as the 6.X beta AFAICT. This seems ridiculous to me. Perhaps Google has decided it needs to reach version 9 by the time Internet Explorer 9 is released? - whatever. Can anyone say what is new/different about this latest beta?

 

I'm starting to worry about Google...

 

It has a long long way to catch up......Opera is now version 10.

 

They'll soon overtake every one...

 

LOL... I've been using Firefox 3.xxx for ages now. Guess its still the dark ages for the likes of me.

 

Beta or Dev?

http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/

Anyway, looks like Goog-bashing is the flavour of the day/week/month/year/whatever

 

Your blog refers to V6.0.472.51. I don't see a V7.

 

See the entry dated Aug 25

Code:

The Dev channel has been updated to 7.0.503.0 for Windows, Mac and Chrome Frame; 7.0.503.1 for Linux.  Some of the updates:

All
[r56615] IP addresses typed into the omnibox now work when offline. (Issue: 39830)
Mac
More tweaks and polish to the Wrench menu (Issues 48679, 51643)
Chrome Frame
Many stability fixes
More details about additional changes are available in the svn revision log.  If you find new issues, please let us know by filing a bug.   Find out more about changing your Chrome channel. 

Jason Kersey
Google Chrome

PS: it's not my blog.

 

Chrome has much more faster development than other browsers, especially when you compare it to IE. Chrome 1.0 was released in december 2008 and now it as as good as any other browser, some might say even better and absolutely faster. Google's employees are young and talented people, who are motivated to try new ideas, that is why Google's stock rises every day. Common users just see version numbers, but there are hundreds houres and features behind it. By the way, Chrome will be the OS soon.

 

Hmm. It took me until perhaps 3 months ago to fully adopt it, and now it is in ill favour? Man, I knew I should have stuck with Kmeleon.

Seriously though, as a very long time Opera lover, and then moving over to Kmeleon for a couple years, Chrome does leave me desiring a few items from the other two. But the more I use it, the more I like it. I don't really care about the sandbox-ish part of it. It is very responsive, and I hate to say it, but it is so spartan that it appeals to me more than the others now.

Sul.

 

The sandbox is brilliant, it offers total isolation with available Windows mechanismes. It has to be said that someone else discovred this method first. The Google main dev engineer, said they had tried ' traditional' application virtualisation first (remember they bought greenborder), but decided against it.

Sandbox mechanism

Using the CreateRestrictedtoken API and AdjustTokenPrivileges to lock down the token the rendering process is running with.

Using a Job object to place limitations on what the rendering process can do

Running the rendering process on a separate desktop to prevent window message abuse

Javascript mechanism
It generates Javascript into machine on execution (which in itself filters out some exploit mechansmes) and assigns hidden classes in stead of shared librariues (making data exception intrusions impossible).

So they succesfully evaded the limitations of kernel protection and the lack of undocumented API's which were available in XP.

 

I appreciate that Google has Chrome on the fast track and I can see that it's getting better. I just don't see how they justify the full version number updates. It's more the norm in the software biz for full version updates to include either significant new features or obvious changes to the interface, etc. I get that the numbering system is arbitrary. My problem is every time a new version is released I expect a new feature or two, but I don't get them At this point I would be happy if they would make it possible to toggle on/off the "close last tab close the browser" option.

 

Google Chrome 7.0.514.0 beta is released.

Download it here

 

The price of success. It is the only browser I have now. It's safe, fast and improving all the time, like TOMxEU mentioned, a legacy from having a dynamic talented team behind.

 

But as long as any 3rd party scripts/plugins are enabled once I allow JS/plugins for a specific site, Chrome is no real alternative for me. The have to change their API first to make this possible.

 

I don't put much value into release numbers. There probably isn't consensus how to manage release versions properly.
nVidia for example uses the release month and publishes software with version 258.96.

I have this idea that release numbers based on publication date gives me a much better sense of the history of the software.

 

Chrome is striving to catch up with those other browsers, methinks.

 

I completely agree. Unless you take its security as the sole advantage, Chrome has nothing to offer, in my opinion. What I find funny is that knowing that Chrome has less to offer, other browser vendors are trying to "Chrome" theirs.

 

Yes, and that Chrome has a security advantage is doubtful - see my post above regarding 3rd party scrips/plugins which is a critical issue. I confess, though, that Noscript is needed.

BTW: If it comes to speed, Firefox 4 is catching up. Besides, it doesn't hurt to look into this tweaking guide or this one (more Linux oriented).

 

14 September 2010
Mozilla renames Firefox 4 Beta 6 to Beta 7

 

There are three things very wrong with that claim. First, Chrome has that feature you describe as an extension: search for "notscripts". Second, it's nowhere close to being a "critical issue"; in fact, it's the exact opposite. Third, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Chrome lacks this feature, it's hardly doubtful that Chrome has a security advantage just because it employs a REAL security model instead of a failed one as hawked by a borderline-unscrupulous extensions developer (read Giorgio's blog post regarding the latest Flash exploit, where he once again resorts to the blatant lie that NoScript is the ONLY way to defeat this threat short of disabling Flash outright).

Firefox has been playing catch-up in the speed department since 2008. Even then, their stated goals for Firefox 4 are not to beat V8/Squirrelfish/Carakan, but just to come within 20% of their benchmark scores. Even after lifting chunks of code from Chrome's JS engine, they're still already resigned to the fact that Firefox 4 isn't going to come out top, and is likely to be dead last depending on how IE9 does.

But then again, as always, speed isn't the deciding factor for everyone...

 

"We have a good track record in hacking contests".

By the way, looks like easy pickings here:
Vulnerability Rewards Program.

 

Read the article.

Doesn't mention why though. Of course, the hackers all came prepared with their homework done before the contest; it's also possible that no one tried because no one could succeed at home beforehand.

 

It's definitely inferior to Noscript and its author admits that.

I disagree. If you whitelist a site and it is compromised by an iframe or a 3rd party script injection, this has important security and privacy issues. The Chrome security model doesn't protect against that. You have no control over what 3rd party things are doing.

 

That's true.

Since you're a NoScript user, would you mind posting a brief summary of the key differences? I'll admit I didn't look too closely at it, for obvious reasons.

The obvious response to this is that if hackers can modify a page to inject a 3rd party script, there is nothing to stop them from embedding a script right inside that page itself. To NoScript, the malicious script would be coming from the whitelisted domains itself.