Google Chrome browser for Mac leaves beta

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    Will this version of chrome work with X-Marks?
  • Reply 42 of 63
    dlcmhdlcmh Posts: 43member
    Safari + Glims (saved tabs, icons in bookmarked items) + Mobile Me Sync (stopped using XMarks, bookmarks sync to the Mobile Safari on the iPhone) for me.



    I didn't like the fact that I was given no control or notification about updates being downloaded in the background by Chrome:

    http://www.quickshortnotes.com/googl...ut-permission/



    But it's still great that Chrome is available as a choice for Mac users.
  • Reply 43 of 63
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    So is Chrome going to update by itself, or do I have to trash it and download the latest version? The option to update is currently greyed out, telling me I have the latest version.



    My current version shows ver. (5.0.375.55.)
  • Reply 44 of 63
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iwarriorpoet View Post


    Will this version of chrome work with X-Marks?



    Chrome had a XMarks extension for some time now. Just check the extension gallery. It only syncs bookmarks though as the XMarks developer claim that Chrome still lacks the necessary APIs for password syncing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    My current version shows ver. (5.0.375.55.)



    This is the stable version. If you were using the beta channel before than you don't have to do anything as they pushed the latest beta version into the stable channel unchanged. In the past Google usually switched beta channel users to the stable channel automatically when the first stable version was released. If you want to stay on the beta channel you'll probably have to switch channels again manually.
  • Reply 45 of 63
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    Sexy AND smart no that's the combination to go for. In that case Safari wins hands down.



    I am completely baffled how people can come to the conclusion that Safari is in any way "smart". I truly am.
  • Reply 46 of 63
    drudru Posts: 43member
    Quote:

    We believe that it provides not only the stability, performance and polish that every Mac user expects, but also a seamless native Mac application experience that Mac users will feel instantly at home with."



    Mike Smith must be stoned. Services are not supported so there's no way to do Text-Speech, for example.



    Preferences are hideous and violate the Aqua UI guidelines. The look of tabs also do not follow the rules.



    Yes, Mike... "Seamless" indeed.
  • Reply 47 of 63
    gwklamgwklam Posts: 17member
    chrome for mac does not like flash transparency right now , (as in a transparent background in flash and use something like allowTransparency=true in iframes) . However chrome for windows works fine lol...



    and Dont tell me not to use flash and go for html5....i know what i'm doing. I'm well aware of what flash(and i am using flash 10.1 ) can do and what it cant do, and what html5 can do and what it cannot do.
  • Reply 48 of 63
    erunnoerunno Posts: 225member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dru View Post


    Preferences are hideous and violate the Aqua UI guidelines. The look of tabs also do not follow the rules.



    I'm curious, in what way do they violate the guidelines? To my untrained eye they look like the ones in many other applications. They surely look more common than the preferences in iTunes.
  • Reply 49 of 63
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    That's because it IS Safari. It's just called WebKit to distinguish itself from the full release version.



    It is WebKit and it uses your currently installed Safari as a front end. That's why an installed WebKit suddenly got the Safari 4 look when a user upgraded from Safari 3 to Safari 4 even though WebKit Nightly wasn't updated.
  • Reply 50 of 63
    lemon bon bon.lemon bon bon. Posts: 2,173member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    Really?



    Installed it for the first time, started it up, after a minute or so (while I was still browsing through the preferences settings), this message popped up. Within a few minutes, it popped up at least five more times (with me even not having tried to visit any page, just having an empty tab open).



    BTW, I do run a pre-alpha Camino build as my main browser and Webkit nightlies as a secondary browser.



    Google, another M£ 'mee too' company. Has anything they do left beta? I mean truly?



    Sure, the do search? Got to be the most over rated company on the planet.



    What do we have here? A 'poorly' Mac piccy?



    I don't want Google spying on me. No thanks.



    I'll stick with Safari. Fast. Elegant. Rarely have any problems with it.



    ...and it sounds like it's set to get even better.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 51 of 63
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Great news for you Mac guys (I myself only use a Mac occasionally). Chrome is by far the best browser out there. Having each tab as a separate process makes a big difference, as does it's ability to load up from scratch in a fraction of a second. (ie. it appears pretty much the instant you click it's icon)
  • Reply 52 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Erunno View Post


    Chrome does only transmit usage data to Google if you opt-in. You're simply spreading FUD.



    you need to go into options and turn off the 'use suggestion service...'



    because anything you type in the url/search box gets sent to google if you don't.
  • Reply 53 of 63
    mkeathmkeath Posts: 60member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Soskok View Post


    Everyone seems to talk about browser speed. Do you really able to anticipate 1/100 of a second difference? Speed depends on your broadband not on your browser.



    Good it finally is stable. It was a good browser even in beta, just not my type. It has many features but doesn't look sexy, i prefer sexy over functional.



    P.S. same as in female market, sexy over smart is 99.9% choice



    With the increasingly more common implementation of stuff like AJAX on the web, heavy javascript websites are more and more prevalent. The difference between a slow and fast browser is significant. Much more than 1/100 of a second.
  • Reply 54 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mkeath View Post


    With the increasingly more common implementation of stuff like AJAX on the web, heavy javascript websites are more and more prevalent. The difference between a slow and fast browser is significant. Much more than 1/100 of a second.



    There is certainly room for more JS engine speed improvements, but looking at the current set or browsers and the improvements they've made over previous versions I think Soskok has a point.



    The upcoming IE9 and all the current standards-based browsers are have very fast and comparable JS speeds. So much so that the focus should be which browser app offers the features, stability, and security you desire over a very slight edging in performance.



    The good thing is that they are all getting so close and all becoming standards compliant ? even IE ? that we are really seeing some great strides on all fronts.
  • Reply 55 of 63
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    DNS prefetch and separate process per tab are great features, as is the 0.1 second start up.
  • Reply 56 of 63
    mkeathmkeath Posts: 60member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There is certainly room for more JS engine speed improvements, but looking at the current set or browsers and the improvements they've made over previous versions I think Soskok has a point.



    The upcoming IE9 and all the current standards-based browsers are have very fast and comparable JS speeds. So much so that the focus should be which browser app offers the features, stability, and security you desire over a very slight edging in performance.



    The good thing is that they are all getting so close and all becoming standards compliant — even IE — that we are really seeing some great strides on all fronts.



    But when websites get more and more complex, that .1 second difference becomes a several second difference. If a Ferrari and a Mustang race down a 1 mile stretch of track, the difference is seconds. If the same two cars race from Houston to Chicago, the difference is hours.



    EDIT: With HTML5 on its way up and Flash on its way out, Javascript is going to be utilized much more heavily.
  • Reply 57 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mkeath View Post


    But when websites get more and more complex, that .1 second difference becomes a several second difference. If a Ferrari and a Mustang race down a 1 mile stretch of track, the difference is seconds. If the same two cars race from Houston to Chicago, the difference is hours.



    And if a couple seconds down a stretch of road is most important to you, then go with the Ferrari, but I'll stick with my Merc S-Class for comfort, safety and reliability while still getting to my destination plenty fast.



    Again, they are all very fast now and very close in speed that the most important aspect for a modern browser should be, IMO, a focus on features, stability and security, not just the browser with the slightly faster JS engine speed on a test site.



    PS:Another aspect to consider for notebook users that are often without power is power efficiency. IE on Windows and Safari on Mac are the best choices for preserving your battery life.
  • Reply 58 of 63
    mkeathmkeath Posts: 60member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    And if a couple seconds down a stretch of road is most important to you, then go with the Ferrari, but I'll stick with my Merc S-Class for comfort, safety and reliability while still getting to my destination plenty fast.



    Again, they are all very fast now and very close in speed that the most important aspect for a modern browser should be, IMO, a focus on features, stability and security, not just the browser with the slightly faster JS engine speed on a test site.



    PS:Another aspect to consider for notebook users that are often without power is power efficiency. IE on Windows and Safari on Mac are the best choices for preserving your battery life.



    I don't think you got my analogy. I am saying that within the next year websites are going to be using enough Javascript to make the difference several seconds.
  • Reply 59 of 63
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Erunno View Post


    Because Safari is a horribly under-featured browser build on top a good web engine? Safari has almost nothing going for it except its excellent history.



    Under featured (what I would give to have some of the features from the S4 beta back) and incredibly buggy. I had site incompatibilities and crashes that I just don't have on any other browser, Safar's webkit cousin Chrome included. If they were to ever fix the bugs (they haven't in seven years, so I'm not holding my breath) and give back the option of top tabs, I'd give Safari another shot.
  • Reply 60 of 63
    armwoodarmwood Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post


    Gimpy adblocking (it downloads ads, then blocks them) and no RSS live bookmarks are a dealbreaker for me. The plugin APIs don't allow for either to be effective.



    I'm using chrome right now on my AMD Geode 500mhz japanese micro-laptop, simply because it is the only browser with acceptable speed on this incredibly under powered machine, but in O X and Windows I use Firefox exclusively.



    __________________________________________________ ______________________



    I tried reading RSS feeds in Firefox when they first introduced that feature. I did not like it. I actually have a few RSS feed in Firefox. I find both browsers and email clients like Entourage a unsatisfactory means for viewing RSS. May I suggest Newsgator's free NetNewswire which syncs with Google Reader online. I find this to be a far superior approach to organizing and reading RSS feeds on the Mac. FeedDemon is Newsgator's windows client.
Sign In or Register to comment.