The Shrine

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:59 am**

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

My comments from another forum:

The comic presentation is excellent, and I'm impressed with the direction they're taking things. Separate processes for each tab makes sense considering that processors will likely have more and more cores but maintain about the same clock speed; the Javascript implementation sounds like they're acknowledging it's a nontrivial runtime system; and a tab focused UI seem natural given how most people work.

All sufficiently complex systems programs start becoming an operating system. Web browsers have been going that way for a while, sounds like Google just embraced it. Of course, Chrome is really Google saying "This is what we want to be able to assume in a browser."

This is also a case of making what you depend on cheap. It was in Microsoft's best interest for computers to be cheap so they could sell software for them; it was in Sun's best interest for businesses to be able to write large applications for their servers so they gave away Java; and it's in Apple's best interest for people to have easy access to (legal) music to sell iPods, so they're willing to butt heads with the RIAA over pricing in iTunes.

update: Download is live: http://www.google.com/chrome

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:00 pm**

Wow! I am surprised at how good this browser is. It's fast; it loads up Gamespot in under a second and a half; WAAAAAAAAY faster than Firefox or IE.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:19 pm**

I'm lovin it so far. Tabs in the Title bar! The webpage takes up my whole screen!

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:31 pm**

I'm impressed. The UI is cleaner, but that will change over time. I think a tab-focused UI, however, is the real innovation. Visually, the top is awkward; I imagine they'll experiment with different ways to show that.

I'm not sure about the idea of showing frequently visited pages upon opening a new tab. My homepage is Google, and when I open a new tab, most of the time I want to do a Google search. So, I can open a new tab and start typing because the search box takes the focus. I'll try the frequently visited pages thing for a bit, but I anticipate my old way is faster.

The idea of using separate processes for each tab anticipates future processors, but I'll see when I get home to my five-year-old laptop if it adds too much overhead for the single-core, single processor case.

Minor complaints: Textbox rendering while editing is buggy, and a scroll-wheel turn moves the page too much.

Edit: Textboox rendering problems are moving into frustrating range. But, note that all textboxes are resizable. (That, I think, is not Google's work, but from the framework they're using.)

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:43 pm**

No gestures. That's alright though. I wonder what the security on this thing is like?

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:52 pm**

I think the architecture as explained in the comic is, in terms of security, a better design than current browsers. Since each tab is its own process, one bad webpage can't bring down the whole browser. Also, they've sandboxed the pages so that they can only read data when the user explicitly asks it to. For example, a page with Javascript to read your drive won't be able to.

That's the design, though. The implementation still needs to be vetted.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:57 pm**

Kupek wrote: Minor complaints: Textbox rendering while editing is buggy, and a scroll-wheel turn moves the page too much.

Edit: Textboox rendering problems are moving into frustrating range. But, note that all textboxes are resizable. (That, I think, is not Google's work, but from the framework they're using.)

I got the same thing..but Im not complaining because it's beta...

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:11 pm**

To demonstrate the improvement in Javascript speed, try this FPS-walk Javascript demo in Chrome and your other browser: http://www.abrahamjoffe.com.au/ben/canv ... xtures.htm

For me, the difference was huge.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:19 pm**

It's definitely interesting... I don't know if I like what they try to do with Bookmarks (throw stuff up in the Quick launch section and everything else is in a folder called "Other Bookmarks") and I need my status bar at the bottom but otherwise it's nice. Not enough flexibility... but incognito browsing is very nice too.

Is there any plans for support of Themes/Plugins? In Firefox things like IETab and adblocker I live off of.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:41 pm**

Plugins are mentioned, but no followup right now.

Bookmarks is a non-issue for me: I have Toolbar bookmarks, but just about everything else is easier to find through searching than through bookmarks. I recognized a while ago that having really good search means there's not as much point in bookmarking.

Google says they don't care if other browsers co-opt their changes, and I believe them. If Microsoft could give away free computers, they would. Google wants as many applications online as possible so they can make money on the ads. It'll be interesting to see if the ideas in Chrome get wider adoption.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:47 pm**

In a lot of ways, this kind of defeats the purpose of OSS. All of that work they spent, they could have worked on developing Firefox to implement these features. In a way, it's still going to be that way, as the Firefox team grabs the code straight from the Chrome codebase and implements it in its own browser. But, this takes time, time that is wasted when Google could have simply worked on Firefox directly.

Also, now with the new browser, the extensions will have to start anew. This is counterproductive. Will Google allow an Adblock extension to Chrome that blocks its own ads? Maybe so, or maybe that was the whole point to creating a new browser (when the world didn't need another one): increasing revenue from previously blocked ads.

Google is still a corporation, as benevolent as it is. I seriously wonder about what their motive is in having a serious amount of coders (read: costs $$$) working on an open source project for an industry that doesn't really need it.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:56 pm**

Think of Chrome as an elaborate feature request. Convincing others that your ideas are the best direction is a lot easier when you can point to a working prototype. Google is beholden to web browsers; they want to influence their design.

Their opening argument also has merit: current browser designs evolved from 10-year-old assumptions. When it comes to implementing new ideas, sometimes it's easier to start from scratch than to spend your time pounding a round-peg into a square-hole.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:03 pm**

Kupek wrote: Their opening argument also has merit: current browser designs evolved from 10-year-old assumptions. When it comes to implementing new ideas, sometimes it's easier to start from scratch than to spend your time pounding a round-peg into a square-hole.

Not that I don't agree, but I don't see Anything in Chrome that points to "build from scratch" methodology. It's all tweaks and advances to existing features and aspects of existing browsers. It may end up being a great 3rd gen browser, but there's nothing here that's unheard of.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:05 pm**

Read the comic. Most of the changes are architectural, not UI.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:26 pm**

Yeah...the comic really explains it all very, very well. From a under-the-covers perspective, it's a huge step forward, I think. I love the separate processes for each tab and the way you can see details on what each page is doing.

I like the barebones look to it. Why do I need something filled with fluff when this browser gives me everything I actually need. Really, all it needs for me is extensions (so I can use mouse gestures and such).

Yeah, Google is a corporation and they have their own business to protect, but I get the impression that they want to be part of a global IT community where we can all build off of one another. They can still do that while keeping their own interests in mind.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:36 pm**

Kupek wrote:Think of Chrome as an elaborate feature request. Convincing others that your ideas are the best direction is a lot easier when you can point to a working prototype. Google is beholden to web browsers; they want to influence their design.

Their opening argument also has merit: current browser designs evolved from 10-year-old assumptions. When it comes to implementing new ideas, sometimes it's easier to start from scratch than to spend your time pounding a round-peg into a square-hole.

Start from scratch? They openly admit that they implemented the browser using core code from both Firefox and Safari. This is akin to a code fork, really. Code forks shouldn't be taken lightly. It's basically saying that Google isn't happy with how the code is being managed, so they are going off and doing their own thing.

And why the fuck is there a comic for this thing?

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:16 pm**

SineSwiper wrote:This is akin to a code fork, really.

You're reaching. How much Firefox code is there in Chrome, exactly? From what I've read, it's not that much.

Chrome couldn't have been implemented in Firefox; it's a completely different product. It uses a completely different rendering engine. It uses completely different UI paradigms. It uses a completely different architecture. Chrome is more different from Firefox than Firefox was from Mozilla.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:32 pm**

SineSwiper wrote:And why the fuck is there a comic for this thing?

Why not? It's an interesting and informative way to explain what they're doing and why they're doing it. Plus it gives credit to some of the key members of the development team which has to be good for morale. It's basically another good idea from Google.

Are you seriously looking for any reason to slam this thing? That's what it sounds like.

PostPosted:**Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:23 pm**

SineSwiper wrote:It's basically saying that Google isn't happy with how the code is being managed, so they are going off and doing their own thing.

Have you actually read the comic yet? (Which, to answer your other question, is a concise way to explain subtle concepts. I was impressed with how well it worked - this is coming from someone who has to write papers to explain his research.)

The architecture of the browser is different than the existing ones. It uses some existing technology, but how all of that is tied together is different. The difference is similar to the micro-kernel versus monolithic kernel design approaches for an operating system. If you want to write a microkernel, you can't start with Linux.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Chrome is more different from Firefox than Firefox was from Mozilla.

This.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:35 am**

Look, I just don't like it. I'm not buying into it. It fragments the userbase, and splits the programmers into multiple projects. Competition works well in closed systems, but it's not very productive in OSS.

Just look at KDE and Gnome. Linux and FreeBSD. Hell, the KDE/Gnome war has prevented Linux from getting a good foothold into the desktop. (Well, that and X, which is pretty bloated in its own right.)

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:43 am**

I like it. When it starts getting some addons and comes into itself a little more I will most certainly use it as my main browser. It's just faster and nicer than firefox. I like how it looks and if it was as fully featured as firefox is with addons, I will certainly use it.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:11 am**

Yeah, you're still missing the point. It's not about Chrome as a product, but the ideas behind it. If it turns out the architecture Chrome uses works better than the monolithic architecture that Firefox, IE, Opera and all other browsers have, they will change. The web browser we all use in five years may still be Firefox or IE, it just might have the same design - UI and implementation - as Chrome.

Or not. Maybe the experiment will fail. But I doubt it. From what I know about trends in the industry, this looks like the right approach.

It also sounds like you still don't understand the difference approaches; you haven't read the comic, have you? Implementing the ideas in Chrome in an existing codebase would require gutting it completely, killing the point of reuse. If you indeed understand that, then you're arguing against experimenting with new designs in general, which I think is an undefensible position.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:17 am**

Yes, I've read the comic. I think Google is unintentionally trying to kill Firefox. Everybody will start using this and all of the hard work put into Firefox will be buried. Or the efforts will be split, and there will be even worse consequences. Why am I the only one who sees this?

Google didn't design this browser as a "concept browser". There was too much work and the presentation was engineered for maximum public attention. (How many news articles are about it?) Not to mention that nobody had even heard of the project until they suddenly went beta on it. Therefore, the browser will stay, and will be developed, and will be a competitor to Firefox.

It will NOT be a competitor to IE. IE has a large market share because many people are lazy. These people will continue to be lazy, and will continue to have the same shitty web experience because they are lazy and/or don't know any better. Until Microsoft starting bundling some other browser into Windows, that won't ever change.

Fine, we get some good ideas out of this, but at what cost? Linux was never burned into the ashes as another product every five years. We still have Linux, and people still use it a great deal. The improvements were put in place, and Linux never "started from scratch" over and over again. So, why would the same development methodology not apply to browsers? (Netscape -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Chrome)

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:22 am**

Sine, I am sorry but Firefox has to die *sniffle*. I'll be the first to jump off the Firefox band wagon and welcome the new age of Google. Fuck Firefox!

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:34 am**

Why am I the only one who sees this?

You're the only one who thinks it's more important than progress. I think exploring new ideas is more important than protecting certain projects for emotional reasons. Firefox isn't sacred. The alternative is to never try radical redesigns.

Again, your Linux comparison doesn't work. If I wanted to implement a microkernel, I could use lots of code from Linux, but it wouldn't be a fork. The design would be radically different from Linux. That analogy would only work if Google put out a browser that was just the same thing with new clothes.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:48 am**

Dutch wrote:Sine, I am sorry but Firefox has to die *sniffle*. I'll be the first to jump off the Firefox band wagon and welcome the new age of Google. Fuck Firefox!

No, it's about progress of internet usage not loyalty to a brand. If Firefox, Mozilla, Shiternet Explorer, Opera, or whatever other browser steps up and uses the Google ideas to make our experiences better, so be it. It has nothing to do with Google taking over from Firefox.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:09 pm**

Zeus wrote:Shiternet Explorer

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:11 pm**

Kupek wrote:
Zeus wrote:Shiternet Explorer

It's a very descriptive term :-)

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:29 pm**

Zeus wrote:
Dutch wrote:Sine, I am sorry but Firefox has to die *sniffle*. I'll be the first to jump off the Firefox band wagon and welcome the new age of Google. Fuck Firefox!
No, it's about progress of internet usage not loyalty to a brand. If Firefox, Mozilla, Shiternet Explorer, Opera, or whatever other browser steps up and uses the Google ideas to make our experiences better, so be it. It has nothing to do with Google taking over from Firefox.

I'm joking. I don't give a crap about what browser I use =P

Though actually, my preference is Safari under the Mac OSX. Firefox is the next best thing, but I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid using IE, it is a perfectly adequate browser.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:15 pm**

Dutch wrote:
Zeus wrote:
Dutch wrote:Sine, I am sorry but Firefox has to die *sniffle*. I'll be the first to jump off the Firefox band wagon and welcome the new age of Google. Fuck Firefox!
No, it's about progress of internet usage not loyalty to a brand. If Firefox, Mozilla, Shiternet Explorer, Opera, or whatever other browser steps up and uses the Google ideas to make our experiences better, so be it. It has nothing to do with Google taking over from Firefox.
I'm joking. I don't give a crap about what browser I use =P

Though actually, my preference is Safari under the Mac OSX. Firefox is the next best thing, but I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid using IE, it is a perfectly adequate browser.

IE is adequate, yes. But I do find Firefox faster and with some of the included features, better overall.

If Google pushes them to become better, I'm all for it.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:51 pm**

I find Firefox and IE to be relatively the same speed. If you're concerned with speed though, Opera is your best friend. It's significantly faster than any of the major browsers out there currently (barring Chrome).

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:05 pm**

Google sends representatives to Firefox and vice versa ate least twice a week. They love each other. True wuv.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:11 pm**

Mully wrote:Google sends representatives to Firefox and vice versa ate least twice a week. They love each other. True wuv.

That's a standard military tactic. For example, it was utilized extensively by the Prussians under various regimes. Trust me, Google Chrome is coming to crush Firefox. Sine knows, let him explain!

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:58 pm**

I say it's more likely that Google gobbles them up and they merge the two.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:24 pm**

One thing I just noticed..

<--------- My elephant no jumpy no fasty no more

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:38 pm**

Seraphina wrote:<--------- My elephant no jumpy no fasty no more

It's a bug in WebKit, I think. GIFs have been slow for me in Safari for years.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:29 pm**

It appears firefox also has a new Java Engine... and its suppose to be better than V8

http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.a ... chromes-v8

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:07 am**

Interesting, those speeds seem very comparable to each other though. The current version of Firefox seems to take about 10X as long as faster browsers like Chrome, Opera, and Safari.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:42 am**

Anarky wrote:It appears firefox also has a new Java Engine... and its suppose to be better than V8

http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.a ... chromes-v8

JavaScript, which has no actual relation to Java. It was a marketing name, really.

Take all "x is better than y" blog posts and articles with a grain of salt. In my experience, the people performing the tests often don't have a sophisticated knowledge of systems, statistics, and experimental design.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:00 am**

Seems like Google doesn't know the meaning of the word "sandbox" either

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:13 am**

I don't see the connection between your description and the actual content. The problem isn't with sandboxing, but with the UI. Personally, I expect new software to have issues. Some things you're just not going to find out about until a release.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:22 am**

I was shocked to see this... but Chrome eats up more memory than IE8?? Wow... hopefully that's cleaned up before release? But you can imagine IE8 would do the same.

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/09/03/2244226.shtml

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:52 am**

Chrome will almost necessarily use more memory because it has a strict 1-to-1 mapping of processes to tabs. The IE beta is not 1-to-1; it uses less total processes. Google made a design decision that they knew would result in more total memory usage, and I think it's the right one: RAM is cheap, and processor cores will be abundant.

These comparisons also don't differentiate between virtual memory (the size of your address space) and resident memory (how much physical memory the process is actually consuming). When a process makes a request to the operating system for memory, no physical memory is consumed until the process actually uses it. What actually happens is the OS increases the amount of memory the process is allowed to use. If you're used to monitoring a Unix based system with top, this quantity is VIRT. Aggressively requesting increases in your address space is a reasonable policy; it doesn't actually cost any physical memory, and it reduces the number of times you have to talk to the kernel. Under top, RES is the actual amount of physical memory a process uses. When we talk about memory usage, this is the important metric.

I'm not sure what Task Manager under Windows reports, but I think it's the Windows equivalent of VIRT. The journalists who do these writeups generally don't understand this distinction, so I pay no attention.

There's also a more fundamental issue: all of your RAM should be in use at all times. This concept of keeping "free memory" is bogus. Physical memory that is not in use is wasted. (Yes, the kernel does need to keep some actual free memory around at all times so it has room to work, but it's not a significant fraction of total system memory.) Browsers are becoming the most important application run on most people's system, so it makes sense that they'll grab more of this resource.

What both Google and Microsoft understand is that the browser is no long just another application in the system; it's becoming a platform itself for running applications. So it makes sense for browsers to start consuming more resources; they're becoming extensions of the operating system.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:49 pm**

Google said they use more total memory in order to make each tab its own process.

Another article I saw says it will let flash eat up all your memory like it currently does on most browsers.

PostPosted:**Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:32 pm**

Yeah, from the comic it also talks about how they know Chrome is going to use up more memory in the short term because each tab is getting its own process. But since killing a tab kills the entire process, there should be less memory fragmentation over time which would make long-term browser sessions more efficient.

PostPosted:**Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:10 am**

I must be the only person on the planet who played with Chrome, and while somewhat impressed by the speed, came away feeling "eh".

It's multi-processed and has a Task Manager! Tickles my nerd never (slightly), but it doesn't make me jump for joy. And while it's faster than FF/IE, it's not like FF/IE feel all that slow to me.

And, as much as I hate to say, it not being able to play Flash is a killer in this day and age.

Rating: Cool Toy that's pulled ahead of Safari as my number 3 browser.

The Shrine

Someone has to post it: Google's Chrome

Someone has to post it: Google's Chrome