Print 64 comment(s) - last by glennpratt.. on Sep 6 at 5:06 PM

Google Chrome comic book  (Source: Google)
Google yet again takes aim at Microsoft, with a new Internet browser this time

Google has publicly released its own Web browser, Google Chrome, in an effort to compete with Microsoft Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, it was revealed over Labor Day weekend.  News of the new browser reached a few select Google users through a 38-page comic book that is available by clicking here.

"We believe we can add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web," a blog entry on the official Google Blog reported.  "All of us at Google spend much of our time working inside a browser. We search, chat, email and collaborate in a browser. And in our spare time, we shop, bank, read news and keep in touch with friends -- all using a browser. Because we spend so much time online, we began seriously thinking about what kind of browser could exist if we started from scratch and built on the best elements out there."

Chrome will be available tomorrow for Microsoft Windows users in more than 100 nations, with Google working on a Linux and Apple MacOS X versions in the works.  A time range for the Linux and MacOS X versions has not been released.

The open source browser was built using Apple WebKit, Mozilla Firefox, and other open source technologies -- and Google will open up Chrome so the community has the ability to tinker with it.

Google is engaged in a battle with Microsoft on multiple fronts, with Internet browsing, e-mail, calendars and word processing, and similar services the focus of both companies.  IE is used by 75 percent of internet users, although it has been slowly losing ground to Firefox.  Google and Mozilla recently renewed their working agreement with one another, and the agreement is good until 2011.  

Last week, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 8, offering multiple features lacking from previous IE versions that left users frustrated and annoyed.  Google built a "foundation of a browser that runs today's complex web applications" better than other browsers, utilizing new techniques not used with other browsers.  For example, Google hopes to have faster browsing by using Javascript; using cloud computing to make information available offline; a bug in a single tab will affect just the one tab, not the entire browser like in Firefox and IE; and tabs will be located on top of the address bar.

There has been heavy speculation over the past couple years about Google working on its own internet browser, but the company remained silent about its project.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Beaver2 on 9/1/2008 10:38:23 PM , Rating: 5 we really need another web browser?
Google is facing the same problem Microsoft has of over expanding...

RE: Sigh,
By Master Kenobi on 9/1/2008 11:11:53 PM , Rating: 1
True. Most of the Open Source community has rallied behind Firefox. Most of the Corporate types have rallied behind IE. Google is trying to enter a market that is already polarized and entrenched. If anything, they might get some measure of market share but I have a feeling it will fail miserably, much the same way that Safari on Windows has flopped.

RE: Sigh,
By Ryanman on 9/2/2008 9:33:58 AM , Rating: 3
Only reason corporate rallies behind IE rather than firefox is they can't switch a company over themselves... they don't want to pay an IT guy to do it, especially when they like being in a comfort zone.

RE: Sigh,
By Fanon on 9/2/2008 11:47:24 AM , Rating: 4
Changing over to Firefox is a non-issue. Chances are a corporation is on a Microsoft network, thus rolling out Firefox is easy thanks to group policy, login scripts, ect.

The real issue is that Firefox cannot be controlled in a corporate environment the way that IE can through group policy.

RE: Sigh,
By semo on 9/2/2008 4:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, frontmotion makes ff deployment easy but there is no easy way (that i know of) to authenticate users for accessing sp for example

RE: Sigh,
By Firechrome on 9/2/2008 8:02:23 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree. I don't think it matters if there is one more web browser to choose from. Specially if they have new ideas and want to do something different.

RE: Sigh,
By rudy on 9/2/2008 9:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and as with every market as time goes on the dominance of the early empires dilutes. Since Web apps are suppose to be standardized it should not matter how many thousands of browsers exist just like all cars can drive on the road with out problems.

RE: Sigh,
By jonmcc33 on 9/3/2008 10:26:27 PM , Rating: 3
...much the same way that Safari on Windows has flopped.

Safari has flopped because it's dull, boring, has nothing new and it's made by Apple. Why would Windows users want anything Apple on their computer? It's bad enough that we're forced to bend over to Apple for Quicktime and there are so many iTunes users due to the stupid iPod. The less Apple I have to deal with the better.

I welcome Chrome as I am even using it now to make this post. I've been a Firefox user since it went 1.0. Anything to evolve technology and advance the web browser beyond what Microsoft stuck us with is a great thing.

RE: Sigh,
By gss4w on 9/1/2008 11:20:31 PM , Rating: 5
I think that more competition is a good thing, especially if Google can introduce some significant improvements to the browser user experience.

Think how much browser development stagnated with IE 6 once Netscape stopped being competitive. It was only after Firefox took off that Microsoft decided to start updating its browser again, and even then IE 7 did not really add anything new. IE 8 looks like it might introduce features that are actually somewhat innovative, and Firefox 3 is a big improvement over Firefox 2.

Competition in browsers is good, as long as they are standards compliant. Where there are problems are when the browsers render pages differently and web developers have to code different versions of web pages for different browsers.

RE: Sigh,
By paydirt on 9/2/2008 11:40:28 AM , Rating: 3
If people actually read the web comic that describes Google Chrome, they would see what we (the consumers and users) would get out of it. Google gets a browser that isn't going to suddenly "turn off" its adverts.

I read the full comic and I am excited about the changes Chrome will bring. For example, my browsing experience for using MySpace chokes on any java, etc, because one tab holds up the whole browser (holding up all tabs). Also, Chrome will redefine the homepage, IMO. Read the comic to find out why.

RE: Sigh,
By flydian on 9/2/2008 10:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The company I work for does a lot of work with online course software, which is heavily Java based. I'm trying out Chrome right now (while posting this...ooohhh), to see what effects it might have on those systems. Having my entire browser tied up because I'm waiting for some slow Java app to load in another tab is...less than thrilling.

RE: Sigh,
By flydian on 9/2/2008 11:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
Oh cool. IE8 Beta 2 has it too. Some of those sites don't even work properly with anything but IE. This could get interesting. :)

RE: Sigh,
By Some1ne on 9/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sigh,
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2008 5:51:59 AM , Rating: 5
Pay attention more. As Kenobi already said. IE8 beta 2 has debuted this feature already.

RE: Sigh,
By Some1ne on 9/2/2008 2:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, I was still using IE8 beta 1, which definitely does not have threaded tabs.

RE: Sigh,
By Staples on 9/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sigh,
By theapparition on 9/2/2008 11:28:09 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft needs to stick to their core compentencies and stop worrying about what google is doing.

And just what do you think Google is doing? They are encroaching on Microsoft's core areas.

Let's see, offering online office software, OS (android), and plenty of rumors about an actual "Google PC".......I'd say that's going directly after Microsoft.

That's what companies are supposed to do. Innovate and compete in the marketplace.

RE: Sigh,
By Staples on 9/2/2008 1:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have always thought that Android was a lot of hype. We'll see when it comes out. Remember this OS is about being open and the carriers are all about being closed so they can sell stuff. I will be surprised if it gets implemented as much and how we are expecting it.

RE: Sigh,
By omnicronx on 9/2/2008 11:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
Google is facing the same problem Microsoft has of over expanding...
The difference being, Microsoft is over expanding to other markets, whereas google making a browser fits right in to the market in which they hold a giant share.

RE: Sigh,
By Quiescent on 9/5/2008 1:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I just tried it. It runs so smooth compared to Firefox. Even when it's still loading the page, you don't have problems with it acting slow. I have 10 tabs open in it and it's only using 30mb of RAM, while I have 5 tabs open on Firefox and it's taking up 150mb of RAM. It has faster scrolling, and actually, webpages load even quicker in it.

Dunno, if I can get Download statusbar on it, I'd be completely set to using this browser.

RE: Sigh,
By Quiescent on 9/5/2008 1:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
Scratch that last part. It has what I need. It doesn't open another pop up for downloads so I am good.

By TomCorelis on 9/1/2008 10:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Two concerns:

First, what does this mean for Firefox?

Second, am I the only person uncomfortable with all this data/applications in the clouds nonsense? The internet is only omnipresent in the most urban of areas. For the rest of the world, the presence of the "cloud" is spotty at best. Cloud computing has its uses, sure, but it seems like the only people really jumping on this stuff are bloggers. My data is important to me, which is why it stays on my property -- not someone else's. (And if it does, it's either data I care little about, or is wrapped -- by me -- in an encrypted container.)

RE: Hmm
By InternetGeek on 9/1/2008 10:36:02 PM , Rating: 3
That's the only thing I don't like about cloud computing. You give up control of your data and your logic. Online backups are cool, but you its just that a backup. I once recommended a customer to move his services online (email, main tool, etc) and I was close to lose a customer because the internet went down, and then the service provider wasn;t updating the DNS records correctly.

Also, Saving in support costs for email and what not is a good feature, but you then don't have ways to integrate more features like shared corporate calendars and what not. How about the corporate intranet? Or even an online app (ie: online reservation system, etc).

For the moment I'm of the opinion that the cloud is cool for your own/small stuff. You know vanilla websites. Move beyond that? Sure, but you're limited to what your cloud provider is letting you use.

Hmmm, cloud provider. That's a cool term.

RE: Hmm
By Zurtex on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm
By gss4w on 9/1/2008 11:12:42 PM , Rating: 5
I think it is more likely to take market share from Firefox than IE, at least initially. People who use Firefox are, for the most part, more likely to experiment with technology than those who use IE.

I personally use Firefox as my primary browser and I plan to try out Google Chrome as soon as it is available. Whether I switch to using it as my primary browser will be determined by which one provides a better user experience. I use Vista x64 and Firefox crashes frequently enough to be annoying (but not often enough to get me to switch to IE). One thing that sounds good about Chrome is that each tab runs in its own processes, so one tab crashing should not crash the entire browser.

Overall people who use Firefox are more likely to experiment with different browsers. But for Chrome to get significant market share it will have to be doing something much better than IE and Firefox are doing today. We should get an idea who likely that is when the browser is released tomorrow.

RE: Hmm
By Master Kenobi on 9/1/2008 11:21:37 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that Microsoft seems to have beaten them to the punch when it comes to independent process tabs. IE8 Beta 2 which was released last Thursday, contains this same feature. I am however interested to see how the Chrome JIT engine measures up against the new one in IE8.

RE: Hmm
By Ryanman on 9/2/2008 9:30:07 AM , Rating: 4
What google's doing with chrome, from what I understand, is make an "always open" brower. Memory and CPU intensive to start, but it "saves" system resources over time, becomes more efficient the longer it's open.
Now in my experience (as a firefox user) I want a browser that can open pages more quickly with minimal bugs and more features than IE for instance. It's nice to open firefox quickly and have all these capabilities, then close it when I'm done. I'm a relatively tech savvy individual who also does heavy gaming. This means I close my browser before I run any game.
My question is, who keeps their browser open for hours and hours at a time? Who doesn't use any other applications that take up memory and CPU usaage? The answer is people who AREN'T tech savvy. Who DON'T try anything other than IE. And Google can't package this in malware fasion like Apple did with Safari either. The target market for a resource heavy browser doesn't have the knowledge or inclination to actually use it.

I'll try it, see if it can play well with my other power applications and let me multitask in offline functions. If not, I'll be sticking with Firefox.

RE: Hmm
By omnicronx on 9/2/2008 11:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
What google's doing with chrome, from what I understand, is make an "always open" brower. Memory and CPU intensive to start, but it "saves" system resources over time, becomes more efficient the longer it's open.
While I understand entirely what you are saying, I think you have oversimplified what Google Chrome is suppose to do. First off, it seems that the added features only really matter if you take advantage of tabbed browsing, regardless of how long you leave your browser open. The first feature, which others have already mentioned was released in IE8 last week is each tab has the ability to run on its own thread.

The second is the memory management involved with the tabs. When a tab is closed, all memory involved with that tab is now available, whereas with IE7 and firefox, the other tabs simply reuse the memory pool which can result in fragmentation over time, which will slowly eat up memory.

One of the big added bonuses regardless of if you close your browser or not, is that if one tab crashes, the browser does not, as it simply has to close the thread in question that is causing the problem. This should include tabs and plugins that are installed.

RE: Hmm
By Ryanman on 9/3/2008 12:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
I did oversimplify : )
Just got done reading the comic book or whatever and then posted this. Doesn't mean I don't understand, or that I didn't know what you mentioned in the second half of your comment though.
Of course we have the performance numbers today, and chrome doesn't seem that bad when you have one or two light tabs.
But I need the ability to have four or five tabs open occasionally, and in this I'm not going to be able to keep chrome running with my games. It's a minor thing (especially if the UI wins me over and I like it being lighter on its feet when I'm browsing normally), but one that I'm going to take into consideration.

RE: Hmm
By paydirt on 9/2/2008 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 3
I am tech savvy and leave browsers open. Usually it is because I have multiple browsers (each w/multiple tabs) open and the reason being is that they are tabs for things either TODO or to read.

RE: Hmm
By flydian on 9/2/2008 11:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
My question is, who keeps their browser open for hours and hours at a time? Who doesn't use any other applications that take up memory and CPU usaage?

Well, everyone at the tech support center I work in does, for 9-13 hours at a time. We have 2 different ticketing systems, both browser based. We have an online documentation system, also browser based (Wiki style). We access dozens of webmail systems, online course systems, and record keeping systems, all of which have some kind of browser based front end (often Java powered).

As it stands, Firefox crashes on me 2-3 times in a 9 hour day, sometimes more if I do something stupid like open two big Java based systems at the same time, or anything for Oracle.

So anyway, there's just one (or 50 if you count all of us) example of an answer to your question. (ironically, I left this message for about 10 minutes to do some work, and Firefox 3 crashed on me while loaded a simple Java based application). :(

RE: Hmm
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/2/2008 9:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
And maybe you, like me, realized that using IE in Vista x64 is not a good option most of the time, because of Adobe's laziness on releasing flash support for 64 bit browsers.

Not that I'd switch to IE from FF if it supported flash, but I always like to have options (there are still sites out there that are made ad hoc for IE and don't render correctly on FF, and if any of those sites has flash content, I'm left alone with the subpar option of seeing it incorrectly rendered on FF because IE can't even show it)

Ahhh how I miss the days when I used Lynx on Unix SCO and I could do with watching sites in text only mode :D

RE: Hmm
By darklight0tr on 9/2/2008 5:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Even if Flash was x64 capable, we'd need a 64-bit Java plugin too. :(

RE: Hmm
By Zurtex on 9/2/2008 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with that in the short term, but I wasn't thinking about short term market share. Google have the power to push this to people who didn't even realise you could get another browser.

RE: Hmm
By sxr7171 on 9/3/2008 3:58:58 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting points you make I wonder why people rated you down. Maybe they were intimated by a logical and informative post.

Here's what justifies Windows: Outlook.

For the home user maybe not, but once you've used Outlook or for that matter any of the Office suite it is very hard to move to anything else. M$ may suck, but damn, Office is a good product.

RE: Hmm
By EvixKeth on 9/2/2008 9:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Today's weather, partly cloudy?

RE: Hmm
By The0ne on 9/2/2008 4:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just you, it me and those that do care about their data and private information. Those that rarely think about it or don't know are the ones that would love this I think.

Not again...
By Murst on 9/2/2008 1:18:54 AM , Rating: 4
As a web developer, I hope this project is a miserable failure. It is already bad enough to get webpages to behave properly in the different versions of IE, FF, Opera, and Safari... and here is a new browser that aims to introduce its own JavaScript code. I'm sure they'll also have their own interpretation of what CSS standards really mean.

Unfortunately, web stanards don't really mean much when they're not specific enough. We already have "standard-compliant" browsers that require attention so that content on them looks the same. Throw in new a new JavaScript language, and it just seems like this project will create more headaches.

RE: Not again...
By achintya on 9/2/2008 4:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
Erm.. It does not have a "new JavaScript Language". The language is the same, but the engine which does the processing is different. As for attention to different browsers, its mainly the problem of trying to make a web page look the same in IE and FF/Opera/Safari as MS has their own quirks while the other 3 do not have so many of them.

And as a web developer even I too would hope that it does not introduce a new set of headaches with its own interpretation of CSS. The main features I guess it will include is improvement of performance of Google owned websites as well as inclusion of custom elements to better display Google's sites. Not another MS again......

RE: Not again...
By kelmon on 9/2/2008 7:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
Presumably, assuming that Chrome uses the same version of WebKit as used by Safari, a page that renders correctly in one should render correctly in the other. The only hiccup that I see here is that WebKit is independent of Safari and Safari itself is usually using an out-of-date version of WebKit. Given this it is quite possible that Chrome will be using a different version of WebKit than is being used by Safari or other browsers based on the rendering engine.

Best of luck. With the Google brand behind it, I somehow doubt that it will be a failure. For starters, anyone searching via Google will probably start seeing adverts for it. That's a powerful position to be in.

RE: Not again...
By psychobriggsy on 9/2/2008 8:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
Well it is based around the WebKit rendering engine, so what works for Safari should work for this. Basically it will be a standards-compliant renderer.

If IE8 actually gets a decent renderer as well, then I can see a time in three years time when web developers don't need to worry about IE6 and IE7 quirks ever again, and just code clean, standards-compliant web pages.

RE: Not again...
By glennpratt on 9/2/2008 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 1
I really doubt your a web designer of any note. I've never met someone with these kind of complaints who wasn't a MS shill or a Dreamweaver user.

As a part time web designer, I love Firefox, Safari and Opera. Thier differences are subtle and by testing in all three I can iron out a lot of bugs. Then I have to go hack it all up for Internet Explorer, the only one to complain about.

RE: Not again...
By Murst on 9/2/2008 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Do you even know what you're talking about? I'm not sure what kind of web pages you develop, but when you're working with firefox, there is a lot of problems with different mixes of absolutely/relative positioned blocks and z-index. Add in floating elements, and stuff that works perfectly on other browsers (opera, safari, IE), doesn't even display on firefox (without some FF-specific hacks).

Opera is a nightmare when working with even remotely advanced javascript. It wasn't until recently that you were able to even modify anything on the page w/ JavaScript in Opera after the page was done loading. I've also developed some standard-compliant code that played around with positioning backgrounds (PNG, other image types worked fine, but I needed transparancy, and GIF looked horrible) on floated elements, which caused Opera to just crash. How's that for standard-compliance?

My biggest gripe w/ Safari is JavaScript interaction with flash. If you want any decent type of communication between flash and the page that hosts it, you better hope that they're running v3.0+, and even here it is not complete. The newest versions of Safari also tend to interpret HTML closer to IE7 than FF1.5x & 2.0x.

Sorry, but I work in the real world where I need pages to look similar (identical is almost impossible in most cases) across many browsers. And if they can't look similar, they at least have to be somewhat usable on older browsers.

RE: Not again...
By glennpratt on 9/6/2008 5:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't given any concrete examples here, give me a link.

Here's 167 IE7 positioning bugs for you:

You asked if I know what I'm talking about, I've developed 5 commercial sites that look almost identical in modern browsers - using valid markup and CSS layout. I develop with Firefox and Opera first, then make a tweaked style sheet for IE7 and then I have to spend an inordinate amount of time making things look OK in IE6.

I know of a couple float issues with Firefox and IE, that Safari and Opera get right.

As for javascript, I use jQuery and I spend almost no time ironing bugs because most of it has already been tested. But I know enough about javascript to have seen all the poor function implementaions in IE, for example: getElementById() which is a disaster. Microsoft even notes it on MSDN:
Note This method performs a case-insensitive match on both the ID and NAME attribute, which may produce unexpected results. This behavior is unique to Windows Internet Explorer.

Again, If you'd like to post a link to what your talking about, go right ahead.

All of them want you.........
By crystal clear on 9/2/2008 12:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
This marks the beginning of a browser war.

To win this war Google,Microsoft & the rest have to note this-

"You never get a second chance to make a good first impression."

By crystal clear on 9/2/2008 12:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
and yes they all will give you the privacy mode....

Among Chrome's features is a special privacy mode that lets users create an "incognito" window where "nothing that occurs in that window is ever logged on your computer." This is a read-only feature with access to one's bookmarks of favorite sites.

By crystal clear on 9/6/2008 11:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
This marks the beginning of a browser war

Those who vote me down only prove how stupid & foolish they are-well what do you expect from low level techies.

Douglas Crockford: 'I Want a Browser War!'

Douglas Crockford, a JavaScript architect at Yahoo and the man behind JSON, the JavaScript Object Notation, says he welcomes a browser war if it will bring innovation in the browser space and move the Web forward. Crockford says the browser war between Microsoft and Netscape moved the Web forward but introduced bugs into the network. However, this time standards and the marketplace will keep browser makers in line. Microsoft's complacency after winning the browser war opened the door for innovation by others such as Mozilla and now Google with its Chrome browser.

Good work, McCloud!
By Buspar on 9/1/2008 11:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
Anyway else really like Scott McCloud's artwork for this comic? I think he did an excellent job visualizing all the technical details they put in the text.

RE: Good work, McCloud!
By shadowofthesun on 9/2/2008 1:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I thought it was very well done.

I especially liked the picture of the greedy plugin stuffing his face with all the resources. Hilarious.

Internet browsing?
By Yawgm0th on 9/2/2008 3:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
What is this Internet browsing you speak of? Does the application do some form of traceroute to whatever IP you type in? That's the closest thing to Internet browsing I can think of.

Maybe I'm just a jackass for being pedantic enough to be bothered by this, but I am bothered. It's a web browser. It does HTTP, and presumably FTP and along with a few other miscellaneous protocols and associated markup languages. It does not "browse the Internet."

RE: Internet browsing?
By paydirt on 9/2/2008 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 2

You are too damn pedantic
Forsaking passion for semantics!

Using the Beta... oh wow.
By KaiserCSS on 9/2/2008 6:26:20 PM , Rating: 2

Seriously, has anyone seen how much memory the Beta is using?

RE: Using the Beta... oh wow.
By rudolphna on 9/3/2008 1:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
thats one of the features. Each tab is an independent process, so one bad tab wont crash the whole browser window.

chrome beta...
By oggy on 9/2/2008 2:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
I really tried to come up with something funny to say about googles beta products, but it's just not funny anymore.

RE: chrome beta...
By Master Kenobi on 9/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: chrome beta...
By Proxes on 9/2/2008 10:29:57 AM , Rating: 1
Something along the lines of Gmail beta? They might as well change it from to google.beta.

By plonk420 on 9/2/2008 2:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
all i can say is that i hope it has mouse gestures...

Not another browser...
By fuser197 on 9/2/2008 4:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yet another team for the great web browser pissing contest.

Chrome has some blemmish
By UsernameX on 9/2/2008 7:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
Switching from tab to tab, and opening new tabs, does not move as smoothly as firefox or even IE7. Though general web browsing is pleasant.

Great Product!
By johnadams on 9/3/2008 6:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
I had just given Chrome a try yesterday and I am impressed! This may partly be due to my minimalistic personality and blue chrome is my favourite theme. The browser does load real fast and I feel it is at least twice as fast as other browsers. Pages loads faster as well. I would love to have a peek at the source code.

It can feel too minimalist sometimes though. My Chrome features wishlist :

1. Set default zoom level for pages.
2. Mouse gestures pretty pls!
3. Hold Right-click + middle-scroll will switch tabs.
4. Middle-click button will allow free-scrolling of webpage.
5. CTRL-Z to undo close tabs.
6. Tab sessions (reopen tabs on launch).

I doubt the brilliant minds @ Google will add too many new features though because it is against their minimalist design goals. Still, I love the aesthetics and performance. I'd pay money for this! (or not).

Ok I'm love bombing Google but to the team who developed this, >salut<!

Google Chrome EULA
By Hare on 9/3/2008 11:11:48 AM , Rating: 2
Who else has read the EULA?

11.1 ...By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services .

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

Whoah... Makes you think.

By sapster86 on 9/3/2008 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
i'd be far more likely to use this once someone releases a 'ad-block' clone for it can't stand online adds the add on for firefox is brilliant!

seeing as how much money google make from ad's recon this is going to happen, though it is apparently going to be an open browser so i'll hold off for now, looks like its got potential though.

to Google
By swizeus on 9/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: to Google
By icanhascpu on 9/5/2008 8:26:54 PM , Rating: 1
Its called Cleartype and has nothing to do with the browser. Change your font.

What the hell is 'uncorrectly'? Thats UNPOSSIBLY IRONIC.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki