Polished Chrome
I'm conflicted about Chrome, Google's new web browser, the beta version of which is now available for download (Windows-only; Mac and Linux versions on the way). On the one hand, I'm fairly satisfied with Firefox; it's definitely the best browser I've ever used, and its quirks are few and far between.
However, Google seems to have brought its usual relentless creativity to Chrome, recasting a vision for what is arguably the most frequently used desktop application (to the point where we often take it for granted). I'm intrigued by its claims of significantly faster speed – up to 56 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 – due to a souped-up Javascript engine. (For a fascinating look at how this and other features of Chrome came together, read Stephen Levy's Wired article; link tip via Daring Fireball.) Also, the Google team has taken the concept of browser tabs to a new level, allowing each tab to live within its own ecosystem, complete with address bar, nav icons, and so on.
But the really compelling features for Google's implementation of tabs are that they (1) run independent processes, meaning that if a website crashes your browser, it actually crashes only the tab in which it's displayed, without affecting other tabs or the browser as a whole; and (2) memory fragmentation due to the opening and closing of multiple tabs has been eliminated. Memory fragmentation is an enormous frustration with Firefox, and if Chrome works as advertised, it will make everything on your computer run faster, not just the browser.
The Google team has done a fine job of explaining the features of Chrome via a 39-page online "comic book." While the details of some of its more esoteric features are still difficult for the layperson to grasp, this approach distills an extremely complex application into mostly digestible pieces. (Unfortunately, in their apparent desire to be ultra-cool, the comic book creators felt the need to include a throwaway reference to an offensive acronym on the first page.)
Whether Chrome will supplant IE, Firefox, Safari, or Opera remains to be seen. My guess is that Firefox will suffer most from the competition, which is unfortunate, and ironic, given that Google has been very supportive of the Mozilla Foundation and its Firefox project. (On the other hand, Chrome will be open-source, and thus its features could very well end up improving Firefox.)
But I don't fault Google for trying to improve its clients' browsing experiences and capabilities, and when viewed within the company's overall strategy of bringing desktop applications to the web, development of a browser that does just that is simply logical. In fact, the biggest question is not "why?" but "what took them so long?"
The plug-in issue is easily solved: don't install them. ;-)
Chrome's security features seem to address those issues very well, in a fashion similar to what they're doing with tabs.
As far as IE being inadequate, that depends on how you use your browser, and for many many people, it's perfectly fine, especially now that Microsoft has fixed many of the horrible habits earlier versions had in rendering CSS. However, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't benefit from a faster browser. That still may not be sufficient reason to switch.
Posted by: Eric at September 9, 2008 12:06 PMUnfortunately, there are still lots and lots of folks who can't switch to another browser. Loads of web-based apps are still hard-coded to work in IE. So, really, unless you relish the idea of getting cozy with multiple browsers, you may still be best off with the old standby.
I use Firefox when I can but have a number of IE-dependant apps that I have to run daily, so I end up running both most of the time. Not sure I'm ready to throw another apps into that mix.
And I'm still trying to find an acceptable solution for having your shortcuts (favorites, links, whatever ya want to call 'em.) spread across a handful of browsers. There needs to be a single place to store them online, but I couldn't get comfy with del.ico.us.
Posted by: Rob O. at September 9, 2008 01:09 PMAnd I'm still trying to find an acceptable solution for having your shortcuts (favorites, links, whatever ya want to call 'em.) spread across a handful of browsers.
Man, I'm with you on that one! There should be a solution that isn't tied to a browser, and I also agree that del.ico.us isn't it. I can't remember the last time I logged onto my account.
You have my sympathies with regard to being shackled to IE. Even if I was an IE fan, M$ made up my mind for me when it stopped updating the app for Macs.
Posted by: Eric at September 9, 2008 01:26 PMChrome is good but not great. Its usefulness is limited (for me) until it gets a sidebar. I use my (bookmarks) sidebar all the time and get frustrated without it.
Chrome does seem to be faster, though.
Posted by: Jim at September 9, 2008 04:40 PMJim, based on what I read about the development team's philosophy, you're not likely to ever see a Chrome sidebar, at least not from Google. They didn't even want to provide a bookmark bar across the top of the window. They're going for the minimalist look that's typical of Google's software.
But I wouldn't be surprised if a plug-in appears that adds sidebar functionality.
It's funny how people want different things in their software. I never use a sidebar with my browsers. But it's not a test of fellowship. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at September 9, 2008 04:55 PMI've been visiting the site of a sidebar non-user? I wish you had put that info in a subtitle. Wait... I don't use one, either.
I've recently been using Safari, though Firefox is my first choice. I haven't had a compelling desire to try Chrome; I fear my brain might randomly dump something critical to make room for new knowledge.
Posted by: Kelly at September 9, 2008 06:36 PMI suspect that most people are not sidebar freaks as I am. If that were the case, Chrome would probably have one already. And you're probably right, someone with similar freakish tendencies to me, who also has mad dev skills, will have to code it for that to exist.
So, tell me, how do people survive without all those bookmarks so near to hand?
Posted by: Jim at September 9, 2008 09:10 PMSo, tell me, how do people survive without all those bookmarks so near to hand?
It's not a pretty sight, but we somehow manage to survive. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at September 9, 2008 09:27 PMKelly, since you're a Mac user, it's a good thing you haven't felt compelled to try Chrome. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at September 9, 2008 10:39 PMI've been using Chrome for almost a week and now and am thoroughly impressed with its speed.
If I could just figure out why Javascript isn't working properly in IE, Firefox or Chrome, I'd be a happy camper.
Posted by: Donna B. at September 10, 2008 02:15 AMDonna, I don't know which operating system you're using, but the problem could be with your OS and not your browsers (especially since the problem doesn't seem to be browser-specific). You might want to check to see if there's an OS patch or upgrade that addresses a Javascript issue.
Posted by: Eric at September 10, 2008 06:24 AMMy computer is still on dial up so it's so frustratingly slow. I would switch to chrome if it were faster but on the other hand, I love my firefox add ins (like spell checker!) so maybe not!
Posted by: Rachel at September 14, 2008 07:58 PM
Haven't tried Chrome yet. I have firefox, but dont use it often...i'm one of those apparent luddites who dont understand why IE isnt good enough...i dont have any problems with IE, and all the plugins are overwhelming for firefox..PLUS how do I know i can trust them????
Posted by: Lynellen at September 9, 2008 11:35 AM