Google Browser

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007644.html

Why do they try to reinvent the wheel everytime?

Originally posted by Arjun Shastry:
Why do they try to reinvent the wheel everytime?

They are planning some new features: each tab runs as a separate process, a JavaScript VM. Anyway, more competition means more power for the end user.

Yes, but do we really need another browser? Making a web application work is already hard because there are so many different browsers, that interpret and display HTML and JavaScript differently.

In my opinion, it would have been much better if they would have added their new ideas to Firefox instead of writing their own browser from scratch.

I agree.IMO their main intention is to attract developer community by making it semi-opensource,increase the popularity and then force end user to see Ads.

Originally posted by Jesper Young:
Yes, but do we really need another browser? Making a web application work is already hard because there are so many different browsers, that interpret and display HTML and JavaScript differently.

In my opinion, it would have been much better if they would have added their new ideas to Firefox instead of writing their own browser from scratch.

That probably would not have fit them from business-perspective.

Originally posted by Arjun Shastry:
I agree.IMO their main intention is to attract developer community by making it semi-opensource,increase the popularity and then force end user to see Ads.

How many ads you have on your orkut profile?

I don't understand this. FireFox is the Google Browser. Google pays many millions each year to FireFox to make the browser. Even the terms in the press release are strange, as Firefox talks about "chrome" as the pluggable style that makes the presentation layer on top of the FireFox engine.

Changing the chrome on Firefox has always been well documented, if not exactly easy.

well this helped answering some of my questions as why google built a new browser rather than extending firefox

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

its a fun read anyway...

Originally posted by Amit Agrawal:
well this helped answering some of my questions as why google built a new browser rather than extending firefox

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

its a fun read anyway...

Not really.

Google pays many millions each year to FireFox to make the browser.

Are you referring to the money Google spends to have the Firefox search box hit Google by default? They have the same deal with Apple about Safari, so I wouldn't say that "Firefox is the Google browser".

Even the terms in the press release are strange, as Firefox talks about "chrome" as the pluggable style that makes the presentation layer on top of the FireFox engine.

It sure is confusing, but I see nothing strange about it. Same word used by a different company -> different meaning.

Originally posted by Amit Agrawal:
well this helped answering some of my questions as why google built a new browser rather than extending firefox

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

Like any other company Google is trying to justify its creation somehow.Address space,deallocated memory.... Give us a break.

It's all about power. Who is the mightiest and other childish things.

Give us a break.

Quite so.
did anyone read this?
Do they really think web developers/end users can be manipulated like this ?

I am looking forward to it.

Even if whatever they are claiming in that comic book is not true completely, it would surely be better than available ones - else they would not release it anyway.

Originally posted by Sumit Bisht:
did anyone read this? Do they really think web developers/end users can be manipulated like this ?

I did, and now I feel more knowledgeable about the project, and not the least bit manipulated. Can you elaborate what you mean?

Originally posted by ankur rathi:
Even if whatever they are claiming in that comic book is not true completely, it would surely be better than available ones - else they would not release it anyway.

It will certainly be better for Google, because they don't need to pay Mozilla and Apple to send search queries their way. It also integrates Gears, which contributes to Google's bottom line through better support of offline web apps.
Whether it's better for the end user remains to be seen. After all, different people prefer different browsers; but generally, choice is good.

This should tell you that Google is running out of innovative ideas and its time to sell its stock now.

With the fast Javascript implementation, built-in Gears, running tabs as separate processes (and the stability, better memory management and debugging capabilities that brings), the ability to detach tags and preserve tab state it sounds like Google is trying to provide a more stable platform for their online application suite.
As a developer, I love having the newest latest greatest technology, but trying to push that technology out to users is a big pain in the ass. Most of the people I interact with get glass-eyed when I talk about Firefox and it's been around for years. Another new browser isn't going to help, I'm afraid.

At least it's built on Webkit. Otherwise, us web devos would have an entirely new renderer to test on.
[ September 02, 2008: Message edited by: Bear Bibeault ]

I wouldnt mind. I just hope I dont have to end up hacking my css to align to chrome browsers as well. Already have a head ache aligning to more than 3 at a time

I would be concerned about what they do with the URLs that I type on my address bar. Google is known for its lack of privacy and I certainly would not want them sending ad agencies the URLs that I visit. I have enough spam already thank you.

It would be interesting to see their privacy policy on this one.

So? It's been out for HOURS. Who's tried it yet?

I did. Nothing special with that one. I had some I18N problems with it. I see Mozilla Firefox as the referential browser.

It's been out for HOURS. Who's tried it yet?

You know as well as I do that we only allow people who use Unix-based OSes around the ranch.

Here is the link for the ones who like to give it a try: www.google.com/chrome

I have been playing with it. The JavaScript console is rather nice. The execution speed is very fast with loading pages.

A JavaScript speed is very fast. JavaScript test that takes 2,000+ ms in IE7 takes 200ms in Chrome.

Also I would read the TOS. It is rather scary in some parts about content you submit and ads.

Nice thing to look at memory is about:memory

Eric

Some first impressions:

First, it's very fast and clearly arranged

You can drag a tab and open it as a new browser instance

The address bar obviously finds proposals with Ajax. It also searchs your bookmarks and your history

The history is displayed in a new tab and is searchable

Popups are "collected" as a window in the window. You only see the title bar of the last one at the very bottom of the page

You can bookmark pages with the star next to the address bar. But to open a bookmark, you've got to type in the first letters into the address bar or open a new tab and go to the favorites directory on the start page. The usability is totally mixed up here: i rarely bookmark a page. Only the ones i find really interesting. But i regularly use my bookmarks. The star may stay there but should do something reasonable

Hmm. A separate tab = a separate process. Could that be a solution to cross site scripting attacks? I'm with Joe though. Firefox is still a "niche" browser amongst my users too.

Originally posted by Arjun Shastry:
Why do they try to reinvent the wheel everytime?

So they can own the patent on wheels. More specifically, Google wants to know everything you do, everything you think, so they can sell more ads.

I think this is a Bad Thing (tm)

I don't want to replace the Microsoft monopoly with a Google monopoly

I'm entering this using it (running XP in Parallels). Pages look as good as in the other browsers (not so good on Windows -- it's amazing what a difference Mac font smoothing makes).

I've noticed some weird-isms with PNGs with translucencies.

Seems fast.

Not grooving on the UI too much.

But essentially, it's dead to me until there's a Mac version.

Is scrolling working for any of you ?

I am not able to scroll up.

Originally posted by Pat Farrell:

I don't want to replace the Microsoft monopoly with a Google monopoly

I liked the browser - esp its speed in comparison to IE8 (beta). I am also happy with what i learned about its memory and process management.

However i would use it only for very limited browsing for the exact reasons Pat mentioned.

Originally posted by Pat Farrell:

So they can own the patent on wheels. More specifically, Google wants to know everything you do, everything you think, so they can sell more ads.

I think this is a Bad Thing (tm)

I don't want to replace the Microsoft monopoly with a Google monopoly

Chrome is under a BSD license. So if Google is taking it in the wrong direction, it can be forked.

Originally posted by Amit Agrawal:
well this helped answering some of my questions as why google built a new browser rather than extending firefox

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

its a fun read anyway...

Ok. The story says:

"First, browsers need to be more stable. ... A browser crash is a big deal."
Firefox is very stable. I've never had Firefox crash on Windows or Ubuntu. Browser stability is not a big problem.

"Browsers also need to be faster. ... JavaScript itself can be a lot faster."
Ok, Firefox has just annouced a massive JavaScript speed boost with TraceMonkey. Do we really need a completely new browser to make JavaScript faster? No.

"Finally, Google Chrome is a fully open source browser."
So what? Firefox is fully open source too.

They're also talking about the fact that JavaScript in browsers is single-threaded. I recently read somewhere that multi-threading JavaScript was also something that's going to be implemented in a next version of Firefox.

At least, one good thing is that Google Chrome uses WebKit, which is used by some of the other big browsers as well. Hopefully that means it will render in the same way as other WebKit browsers.

We'll see if it becomes popular, and I know there are a lot of smart people at Google who build great applications, but currently I still really don't see why a completely new browser is necessary (besides business / power reasons).
[ September 03, 2008: Message edited by: Jesper Young ]

well, imho chrome has not been developed for pure technical reasons. i guess a large % of pc user mainly use:

1. a browser
2. an office pack (excel, word, ppt etc) and ofcourse
3. a gui based operating system

though google would end up killing firefox, i don't think its strategic focus was firefox users. even the whole comic strip runs on IE v/s chrome basis (without any attention to firefox).

firefox captured approximately 19% of the market share but its still far from being a real threat to IE which remains "the browser" for windows users and covers almost 74% of overallbrowser market. google hopes that its brand would help chrome doing the same damage to IE which gmail did to yahoo and hotmail.

i will not be surprised if i see a free google operating system in another couple of years especially if chrome is successful.

And, more about "First, browsers need to be more stable. ... A browser crash is a big deal." - The first exploit has been found that makes all tabs crash. They're not (yet) delivering what they promise.

Chrome doesn't prompt before closing multiple tabs.

Originally posted by Vishal Pandya:
Chrome doesn't prompt before closing multiple tabs.

That's the first thing I turn off when I install Firefox

I love firefox and I aint movin. I dont even feel compelled to check out the new browser.

If only I could make my business users switch to firefox. sigh !

Using now.

It's soooo fast!

I truly dig the URL bar/search bar combo. It's behaving exactly like I'd have designed it.