Google Chrome 2.0 Beta

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Searching_ _ _, Mar 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Searching_ _ _

    Searching_ _ _ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,988
    Location:
    iAnywhere
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3998
     
  2. PastTense

    PastTense Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Posts:
    42
    I doubt if this really applies to lots of us. I run Firefox with Noscript, Adblock, and Flashblock. My philosophy is that you can browse faster on a browser which doesn't process all the junk most sites have than on a browser which simply processes the junk faster.

    Have you done this type comparison?
     
  3. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    For that, there's Proxomitron and Privoxy. If you use an antivirus with a HTTP scanner, you can often import adblock lists into them as well.

    Firefox is getting stale IMO. More vulnerabilities than the other major 4 browsers combined, and it still employs yesterday's single-process architecture (which is sucking up 103MB RAM as I type this). Adblock is the one last thing it has going for it, but once that final bastion falls...
     
  4. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    the current dev build is even better imo
     
  5. zopzop

    zopzop Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Posts:
    632
    I wish I could get this damn browser to work. I've tried on 4 different machines (2 of mine, my brother's, and my best friend's) and it will not function right. I keep getting that "Aw, Snap" error on all 4 machines.

    I've had this problem since December and every build I've tried hasn't solved this problem. It appears I'm not alone, others have had this problem and so far there's no solution offered by Google.
     
  6. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,697
    You do realize the actual number means nothing? If you're using anti-virus software with/without web scanner or whatnot, the number can vary up by a factor of x2-3. At my former workplace, removing McAfee caused all apps, including Firefox to halve their mem usage.

    I've seen FF give anything between 30-200MB, depending on the machine.

    Mrk
     
  7. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Posts:
    110
    Hi Folks,

    Whether or not Firefox is 'stale' the extensions make it quite versatile. It remains my browser of choice, followed by Opera. For memory issues, there are lots of ways to address. (I use Linkman for bookmarks, browser independent.)

    What I think is interesting is whether the corporate and small business environment might do well with Google Chrome. Their usage is often comparitively simple and straightforward, only a tab/window or three at a time.

    If the reports about far better security in Chrome are accurate (something about a sandbox architecture) that could be really nifty in the small business environment. Where you don't want to rely on folks giving answers to a HIPS or NoScript prompt.

    Any downside ?
    (Other than the couple of banks or special sites that might insist on IE.)

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2009
  8. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Quantitatively, I'd say you're right, the actual number itself means nothing. Relatively, though, it means a great deal, especially when even IE8 is using just half that amount with the same webpages open.
     
  9. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    The latest beta has reduced the memory consumption. By how much, I'm not exactly sure. Hopefully, they'll optimize it even further before they release 3.5.
     
  10. Searching_ _ _

    Searching_ _ _ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,988
    Location:
    iAnywhere
    I have compared apples to oranges and neither are plums. :D

    -$100.02
     
  11. Reimer

    Reimer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Posts:
    217
    For me, there's gotta be something more for Chrome to be usable.

    It's fast, sure but I need more than just speed. I don't care for the interface (no dropdown URL bar and just ugly theme overall), slow scrolling speed, and currently not even close to the cusomization I can get with other browsers.

    The multi-process feature is nice but can't be completely dependable. I've had crashes take out every single chrome process which is odd.


    I guess we'll have to wait until addons come out but it's nothing more than a fast version of IE for me at the moment.
     
  12. progress

    progress Guest

    Do Chrome already has a feature like Adblock? The browser is really fast, but without "Adblock" I can't surf any more :rolleyes:
     
  13. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    You have several options.

    First is to use a Chromium port called SRWare Iron, which can block ads by default. Instructions here: http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/01/06/block-ads-in-chrome-based-srware-iron-with-a-single-file/

    Second, if you don't want to use a rebranded (but otherwise identical) version of Chrome, install a local proxy to filter ads. I use Privoxy (see here), but many swear by sidke's Proxomitron filters.

    Whichever option you use, check out AdSweep as well for element hiding.
     
  14. progress

    progress Guest

    It looks great, but the installation process is getting complex: Install Chrome, install UnChrome to reset the unique ID, create scripts directory, enable greasemonkey with AdSweep. It's no problem for me, but ordinary joe will stay with IE/FF I think? :blink:
     
  15. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Well, you asked for a method, and I gave one. I never implied you have to do it; thats up to you to decide.

    Personally I couldn't care less about the unique ID, so that's one step less for me. If you're lazy but it bothers you, use Iron. Chrome also creates the scripts folder automatically when you specify the --enable-user-scripts switch, and last but not least, Greasemonkey is the name of the extension that provides the feature, not the name of the feature itself. That's like calling IE the Internet. :argh:.

    Besides, is it really that much more complicated than IE/FF? Install FF, install Adblock, search for filter list, import (and you have to restart FF in between). Or install IE, download filterlist, enable InPrivate Filtering registry hack, import filterlist.
     
  16. progress

    progress Guest

    Ok Eice, you are right :)

    A question to AdSweep: It contains a long domain list, is there any way to include expressions like */ads* and so on? I think these expressions are more effective than single domain entries!
     
  17. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    I have tried chrome but its to basic doesn't really have any features and some websites I use don't fully work with it. plus i dont like the google updater.
    when will companies learn autostart entries arent needed for checking for updates! just add a scheduled task to run say once a week.
    even MS create a autostart entire for some of there auto updaters for example intellipoint. for a start why doesnt the update appear within Microsoft update?
    I still dont get why everyone loves firefox. to each of his or her own.
    I use opera because it has everything I need bultin and is fast and safe.
     
  18. progress

    progress Guest

    Because of the add-ons like KeyScrambler, ColorfulTabs .. If there would be no Firefox I would also use Opera.

    I also noticed this :doubt:
     
  19. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    AdSweep relies on Javascript and regexp. Hopefully you're familiar with those syntaxes if you want to tinker with the file.

    Many people are confusing a minimalist interface with no features. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. Take your time, poke around, look up some guides and how-tos, Google, check the help files and official forums, etc. You just might be surprised.

    That said, right now it's unrealistic to expect Chrome to have every feature Opera and Firefox (with extensions) have. But if you're an early Phoenix adopter back in 2002-03, you'll know that Chrome has the right formula for success: a strong focus on the basics. A pity Phoenix lost sight of that; perhaps in 7-8 years Chrome will become slow, bloated and insecure as well, and someone else will step up to repeat the cycle.

    Use Iron or Chromium. Problem solved.
     
  20. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Hello Eice,
    what is the offical website for Chromium?
     
  21. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
  22. L815

    L815 Guest

    Firefox ins't sluggish because of "junk" from websites, it's slow because it's on the XUL runtime which is like an OS for the plugins it has to support :mad:

    Proof of concept, k-meleon also uses xul (correct me if i'm wrong), and it runs much faster than FF, but has little to no support for plugins.
     
  23. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    I think you meant to say, "K-Meleon uses native Windows APIs instead of XUL to draw the UI". :p
     
  24. progress

    progress Guest

    If this method is better/faster, why does Firefox not use these APIs? o_O
     
  25. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Simple. Those APIs are OS-specific, while XUL is cross-platform. No need to rewrite UI code separately for Windows, Mac, Linux.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.