Review: Google Chrome lacks polish under the hood

Enlarge

Google Chrome, Google Inc.'s new Web browser, is shown during a news conference at the company's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2008. Google Inc. is releasing Chrome in a long-anticipated move aimed at countering the dominance of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer and ensuring easy access to its market-leading search engine. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

(AP) -- Google Inc.'s new Web browser, called Chrome, does much of what a browser needs to do these days: It presents a sleek appearance, groups pages into easy-to-manage "tabs" and offers several ways for people to control their Internet privacy settings.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

New Opera Web browser offers more tab options

Jun 03, 2009 | 3.7 / 5 (9) | 1

Apple Announces Safari 4 Browser

Feb 24, 2009 | 1 / 5 (1) | 0

Microsoft Hopes To Win Back Browser Market Share With Internet Explorer 8

Mar 16, 2009 | 1 / 5 (12) | 13

Review: IE8 features good, but no need to switch

Apr 01, 2009 | 3.5 / 5 (2) | 1

Google's SPDY will speed up downloads

Nov 16, 2009 | 4.4 / 5 (16) | 7

   

• Palli - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (7)
  Running 40-50 instances of any browser looks risky to me, unless you share some resources such as the rendering engine amongst those windows like traditional browsers do. Chrome runs each page as a separate process which is more expensive on memory. Therefor I think it's unfair to compare browsers in this way.
  Maybe you should consider organizing your work to perform better with fewer windows open at a time?
  
  What I find interesting is that it seems Google is sneaking in an "operation platform/system" for their own future application developments. With Chroma they have a platform for Java applications that could rival "Windows only .net" applications and every desktop application that comes from Micro$oft.
  This even put's less importance on operating systems as processes get more dependent on virtual platforms (Java/.net ect.) so Chroma could do BIG damage to Windows as well!
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• KMG - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (7)
  I would like to respectfully disagree with everything in this article about IE 8 Beta 2. My horrifying experience with it is still on going. I am a certified Microsoft System Engineer and with over 15 years of IT experience I can honestly say it is the worst, slowest and buggiest product yet released by Microsoft.
  
  I first installed it a week ago and after the install my computer rebooted. I launched IE 8 Beta 2 and it crashed.
  
  I launched it again and it ran this time but when I open a new tab it crashes. This crashing continues to happen every time I click control T or open a new tab. I can crash IE with a single stroke of the keyboard!? When I browse to links that open a new windows or open a tab IE 8 it CRASHES. This leads me to believe it is the flakiest product yet release and should be shelved like Microsoft Bob.
  
  I then tried to uninstall IE 8 beta 2 hoping to rid my computer of this infestation. Guess what. YOU CANNOT UNINSTALL IT!!! It is FOREVER on your machine!!! Microsoft claims that this is by design if you had IE 8 beta 1 installed. Guess what, I DID NOT. I had a clean install. Microsoft also claims that it warns you that if you install over IE 8 beta 1 you cannot uninstalled beta 2. Guess what, I never got this warning since I did not have beta 1 installed -- ever!
  
  Here are my facts:
  * IE 8 beta 2 takes a very long time to load initially sometimes over 1 minute
  * Firefox/Chrome/Opera take a fraction of that
  * Firefox/Chrome/Opera can load 4 times the number of pages in the time IE 8 Beta 2 takes to load 1 page (all the same pages)
  * IE 8 Beta 2 CRASHES A LOT!!!
  * IE 8 CANNOT BE UNINSTALLED!!!
  * If you have issues with IE 8 like me you will regret ever installing it!!!
  
  Lessons Learned:
  Install Firefox, Opera or Chrome. DO NOT INSTALL IE 8 Beta 2!!!
  
  Regards,
  Kris G.
  MCSE
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• seversky - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (4)
  This article sounds fishy.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• DiabolicEdict - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 4.2 / 5 (6)
  "I often have 40 or 50 tabs open in Firefox"
  
  I'm having a hard time believing that. This piece sounds more like a paid Microsoft advertisement to me.
  
  Also, if you really wanted to test for accurate Javascript performance, stop using your wristwatch, try this http://wd-testnet...test.htm
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• 10wattmindtrip - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
  I think this article is a bit too hard on Chrome. It was released yesterday, not 2 weeks ago, not 12 weeks ago, not a year ago.
  This browser on it's first release has brought a lot of attention to people because of it's performance. It's 'open source' also. This means plugins will be added.
  I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Somehow though, I think my coffee is agreeing with me. Weird.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Glis - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
  I think we're expecting a little much from Chrome. It's still a BETA. Plus, they are trying to do a lot of new stuff with it. It's going to be full of bugs for quite a while. Remember Win95 Beta?
  
  As for the MCSE above... I've installed and run IE 8 BETA 2 with zero problems. Of course, I only use it for sites that don't work with Opera. =)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• MGraser - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  I'm not sure what this author is talking about. There is only one problem that they actually mention, which is the handling of Flash in relation to CPU resources. Good point.
  
  At the same time they point out that:
  1. Javascript is handled better, which is a major component of functionality for almost every webpage. BTW, CNET has a chart showing that Chrome's V8 internals blow away the competition.
  2. Chrome sandboxes each tab, so that not only won't poorly written code crash your computer, but it won't crash your browser. It effectively isolates what's happening to that specific tab - a major improvement.
  3. Chrome has the equivalent of a Task Manager for the browser, so that you know EXACTLY what is using your resources and you can end that process if you like.
  4. It also allows you to use the browser "incognito" (their own term). Browser history, cookies, etc. are not recorded for that session. Yes, the ISPs can still track you, but it sure beats dropping your entire search history and cleaning up your browsing sessions after the fact.
  
  Also, as the author points out, add-ons will come with time. Most people didn't even know there was going to be a browser until a couple days ago.
  
  So, the author is put out about Flash. Guess what - they can make a suggestion to Google! I bet they'll want to fix that. Otherwise, the browser is stunning for a beta product. I've been using it for the past two days and have been very happy thus far.
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• MGraser - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Forgot to post the link to the CNET article:
  http://news.cnet....-92.html
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• madsp - Sep 03, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I don't like that you say that Firefox(FF) has a less serious problem, because there exist 3rd party addons that enhance it and solve your problems. It doesn't seem like a very objective way to look at the two browsers.
  Imagine that a new version of FF comes out and that your much loved addons aren't compatible with that new version. Then it would be the same if you said that your older version of FF was better, because it supported your addons, even though the newer version of FF was more secure/stable/whatever.
  You can't blame a beta for "lacking polish under the hood", its what you would expect of a beta product in my opinion.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• SnagaDuath - Sep 04, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  I have to agree with madsp. I'm very impressed with what I've seen from Chrome so far. I'd concider switching from FF, if there was a beta version for Linux, simply because it's faster. What I would really like is for Mozilla to incorporate the parallel processing and sandboxing into FF, because I've also fallen in love with ubiquity.
  It's going to be a tough choice for me between Chrome and FF once Chrome is no longer in beta.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• wawadave - Sep 04, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  the author sure does sound like a shill for MS.
  
  Wonder what his computer spects are hardware wise?
  
  I found older computer have less resources and handle things less well.
  Found this same with all programs that run on old hardware with less ram.
  I,m sure ie on that machine really sucks up resources!
  
  Former MS MVP
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• matelot - Sep 09, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  >> PETER SVENSSON:
  >> At work, I often have 40 or 50 tabs open in Firefox
  Only "40 or 50 tabs" ????!!!!
  Jesus Christ, you must be the "busiest" Internet user on the planet....LOL
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5