Google Chrome 7.0.503.0 beta

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Victek, Sep 3, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,121
    Location:
    USA
    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?
     
  2. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I'm starting to worry about Google... :doubt:
     
  3. nanana1

    nanana1 Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts:
    947
    It has a long long way to catch up......Opera is now version 10. :p
     
  4. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    They'll soon overtake every one... :D
     
  5. moserw

    moserw Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    30
    LOL... I've been using Firefox 3.xxx for ages now. Guess its still the dark ages for the likes of me.
     
  6. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Beta or Dev?

    http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/

    Anyway, looks like Goog-bashing is the flavour of the day/week/month/year/whatever :)
     
  7. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    Your blog refers to V6.0.472.51. I don't see a V7.
     
  8. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    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.
     
  9. TairikuOkami

    TairikuOkami Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,508
    Location:
    Slovakia
    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. :)
     
  10. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    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.
     
  11. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    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.
     
  12. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,121
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  13. nanana1

    nanana1 Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts:
    947
    Google Chrome 7.0.514.0 beta is released.;)

    Download it here *puppy*
     
  14. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,214
    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.
     
  15. tlu

    tlu Guest

    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.
     
  16. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    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.
     
  17. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Chrome is striving to catch up with those other browsers, methinks. :shifty:
     
  18. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    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.
     
  19. tlu

    tlu Guest

    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).
     
  20. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    14 September 2010
    Mozilla renames Firefox 4 Beta 6 to Beta 7
     
  21. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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...
     
  22. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    "We have a good track record in hacking contests".

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

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
  24. tlu

    tlu Guest

    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.
     
  25. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.