backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by atlmann10.. on Mar 28 at 12:00 AM


Chrome 11 Beta...

The GUI's look remains relatively unchanged.

The new text to speech API is quite impressive.
Browser packs some slick tricks, but best is yet to come

This week the last of the "next generation" browsers finally shuffled in -- Firefox 4.  The industry's top players -- Internet Explorer 9, Firefox 4, Chrome 10Opera 11, and Safari 5 -- each brought something unique to the table this round.  But ultimately Chrome 10 proved to be the quickest of the crop in many tests, and among the most proficient at HTML 5.  It was also among the first of this crop to land in finished form -- an impressive feat.

Not content to rest on its laurels the folks at Mountain View have been busy cooking up a new beta [blog] of their next browser, Chrome 11.  That beta landed in the test channel yesterday and late this afternoon we took it out for a spin.

I. Speech to Text

Among the browser's most impressive features was the inclusion of a new HTML5 API that allows websites to implement speech-to-text dialogue boxes.  We were skeptical at first, but nonetheless made our way over to Google's minimalist demo page

To start we tried a simple example, saying "Hello world, from Google".  Sure enough it transcribed:

hello world from google

Next we tried a more challenging passage, the opening sentence of the Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

After contemplating for a second Google spit out:

4 score and 7 years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated this proposition all men are created equal


We'd consider that a pretty ringing success for the API.  We did try to read it a longer portion of the speech, but were met with an error, suggesting we check our microphone settings.  We're pretty sure there's some sort of a programmatic limit in the test applet on how much text can be input.  It is an impressive example, nonetheless.

Also, note that the HTML5 standards committee has not approved this spec.  Google has submitted the technology as a proposal to the 
HTML Speech Incubator Group, the group in charge of creating a web standard for speech-to-text.

(The sentences indicated as transcribed were directly copied and pasted from the resulting text in the test page's text box.)

II. Standards/Web-Technology

One of the more novel additions to Chrome 11 is the inclusion of 3D cascading style sheets.  CSS sheets rule most of the web, determining how web pages are arranged and how the text on them appears.  With the exception of a few all-Flash sites, nearly any website worth its salt has devote much time and effort to CSS design.

3D CSS allows for text and simple cells to be drawn in 3D dimension, for example warped onto the surface of a cylinder.  It also allows for unique 3D-esque animation effects, such as a spinning/card flip effect upon mouse over.

As you might guess, these effects demand a lot of processing power, which is why Google has thrown GPU acceleration at the task.

While we don't see this as ground moving, it's certainly entertaining and could make for an entertaining twist on the old page-view counter.

Google has set up another demo page on the new feature.

As mentioned, the speech-to-text feature is part of Google's growing library of supported HTML 5 features.  After the speech-to-text test, we took it through the paces of The HTML5 Test.  

As usual all tests were run on a 2009 era MacBook Pro with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo processor, NVIDIA graphics card, and 4 GB of RAM.  The tests were run in Windows 7 Professional (Boot Camp) 64-bit edition  

We combined the results of our Monday piece on the release of Firefox 4, to add comparative values.

For humors sake, as Apple Steve Jobs is always hyping HTML5, we tested Safari 5, too, for good measure (in Windows 7).  As you'll see, perhaps he's more talk than action -- all Webkit browsers (Safari is also built on Webkit) are obviously not created equal.

We obtained the following results (higher is better):

1. Chrome 11 beta - 293 points (+13 bonus points)
2. Chrome 10 -------- 288 points (+13 bonus points)
3. Firefox 4.0 -------- 240 (+8 bonus points)
4. Safari 5 ------------ 228 (+7 bonus points)

For fun we next ran Acid3, a general compatibility test, that tests things like CSS and SVG, we received:

T1. Chrome 11 beta - 100/100
T1. Chrome 10 -------- 100/100
T1. Safari 5 ------------ 100/100
4. Firefox 4.0 ---------- 97/100

III. Speed

It's a bit unfair to test an early browser test build's speed as much tuning goes into optimizing the speed side of things late in the test cycle.  Still, we decided to take a quick peek at what kind of results the new beta might yield.

To begin, we tested script performance using the Sunspider Javascript test.  Note, as we wrote Monday, Firefox did not properly animate the text, so it's unknown whether this impacted performance.  Nonetheless, here is the results (lower is better):

1.  Chrome 11 beta - 283.0ms +/- 2.1%
2.  Firefox 4.0 -------- 299.1ms +/- 3.6%
3.  Chrome 10 ------- 509.7ms +/- 10.2%
4.  Safari 5 ----------- 592.2ms +/- 5.2%

Next we ran Mozilla's Kraken Javascript benchmark.  Note, in the fast we've noticed Firefox perform unusually well here versus third party benchmarks, so we tend to take its results with a grain of salt.  We observed:

1. Firefox 4.0 --------- 8209.6ms +/- 1.6%
2. Chrome 10 -------- 10164.5ms +/- 1.8%
3. Chrome 11 beta - 13030.9ms +/- 2.7%
4. Safari 5 ------------ 18231.6ms +/- 1.9%

We wish we could use Celtic Kane's JSBenchmark, as Chrome did particularly well in it in our testing on Monday.  However, to our dismay apparently the developer had some database issues, so the benchmark is offline.  Our best wishes go out to him for a speedy recovery -- we love his test!

As a final general performance metric, we ran Futuremark's Peacekeeper benchmark, which tests a variety of standards.  We received:

1. Chrome 10 -------- 8020 points
2. Chrome 11 beta - 6439 points
3. Firefox 4.0 -------- 3511 points
4. Safari 5 ------------ 2767 points

Ultimately the Chrome 11 beta, in its current state, appears to have slid back slightly in terms of speed.  It's still faster than Firefox or Safari, overall, though.  This is quite healthy, as we mentioned, as browser development is kind of like exercise -- you have to tear down the browser's "muscle" (engine code), before building new stronger, faster "muscle" (engine code) in its place.

IV. Conclusion

Chrome 10 is one of our favorite browsers right now, simply because it is so fast.  Overall, there's no compelling reason not to switch from Chrome 10 to Chrome 11 beta.  We haven't experienced any crashes, and qualitatively the page load speed feels about the same.  The GUI actually feels a bit more responsive (again, qualitatively) than Chrome 10. 

Aside from support for new standards and web-technologies (including speech-to-text), there's little noticeably changed in the test build.  The GUI remains almost identical in look, though the icon did change.

Firefox and Opera, however, remain strong challengers.  Firefox has great extensions, and Opera is fast and has some great UI features like tab stacking.  Internet Explorer 9 also has its merits (namely manageability in a business setting), though it falls flat for lack of extensions and still falls short of speed/standards support.  

At the bottom of the barrel is Safari 5, which has a pretty clunky UI and little unique to write home about.  Quantitatively in benchmarks Safari 5 brings up the rear in virtually all our tests (besides Acid 3).

We really can't tell you which browser you'll enjoy the most, but we'd suggest taking Chrome 11 beta out for a spin of your own -- it can't hurt.



Comments     Threshold


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

I hate Chrome's interface
By jmunjr on 3/24/2011 1:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
I tried Chrome up to the latest version and still hate it. I'm a freaking developer and found it difficult to do the things I like to do with my programs and browsers. Features and functions were either hard to find or just missing.

I really, really wish there was a legacy interface for those of us who simply like it that way. Google thinks they know what is best apparently and doesn't give us that option. Firefox does. I'll stick with FF...




RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By BruceLeet on 3/24/2011 2:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
I know how you feel, I want to add RSS feeds like FF4 has them in the bookmarks toolbar but Chrome doesn't do it that way.

BTW WEBMASTER, your RSS isn't functional in Chrome 11 Beta.


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By Doh! on 3/24/2011 3:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
But there's an extension for it (Foxish Live RSS).


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By BruceLeet on 3/25/2011 9:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Cool thanks, I've been looking for RSS extensions. You know RSS...REALLY SIMPLE SYNDICATION.

LOL so many Chrome RSS extensions are so complicated to configure, thats why I like Firefox take on RSS drop-down menus...really simple, really fast and it really streamlines my style of browsing.

I'll check out the extension hope its just like Firefox's. Thanks again.


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By BruceLeet on 3/25/2011 9:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
Very good extension thanks very much, just how I like it.


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By Azethoth on 3/24/2011 4:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
Please add content to your complaint by listing your top 5 mia or jacked features.

That way Chrome users like me can say doh, I am switching to FF4 because it does all these awesome things I never knew about but could totally use. Well, unless after uninstalling it you are left with a totally jacked Windows OS like with all previous versions of it. As in help files goddamned better still work after uninstall unlike with FF3 and Windows XP.


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By wordsworm on 3/24/2011 7:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm an adamant FF fan. I've tried the rest and always return to the best. However, that audio interface has piqued my interest. It will be worth investigating when they come out with an official release.

I was really expecting an image of Scotty talking to the mouse to go with this story though... sorely disappointed.


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By Denigrate on 3/24/2011 8:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
I've tried many times to get into FF, but it has always felt a tad clunky to me. Love Chrome though and do 90% + of my browsing on it. Rest of browsing is done mainly through enforced IE 8 at work, and a bit of IE 9 at home.


RE: I hate Chrome's interface
By wordsworm on 3/24/2011 10:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
It probably helps a lot that I went from daily virus problems varying from minor annoyances to having to reload windows to... literally... 0 viruses since I installed FF. I'm sure Chrome is as good in that way.

But the clunkiness that a lot of folks refer to I've never really felt. It's the ease in customizing FF that really has me clinging to it. I think if Chrome was easier to manipulate, I'd be more interested. To be honest, I installed FF 4, and I don't really like what's happened to some things. I really wish they'd allow custom menu dragging and maybe a locking mechanism like what Windows has or Linux: ie, autohide the top stuff (tabs, menus, etc.)

Anyways, considering what FF did for me, it's going to take something like a good audio control interface to really make me second guess my choice.


Peeacekeeper scores
By Mr Alpha on 3/23/2011 5:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
How are you getting those Peacekeeper scores? They are way of from what I'm getting.

For reference these are my results:
Opera 11: 8400
Internet Explorer 9: 5632
Chrome 10: 5497
Firefox 4: 4659




RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By Aloonatic on 3/23/2011 6:15:02 PM , Rating: 3
I believe that the scores will change depending on your hardware configuration.

Here are my scores, from my lil Celeron 743/Intel 4500M Acer 1410 notebook.

Chrome 10.0.648.119 - 3923
Chrome 11.0.696.16 -- 3917
Chrome 9.0.597.83 ---- 3820
Opera 11.01 ------------ 3569
Chrome 9.0.597.19 ---- 3539
Opera 11.00 ------------ 3380
Firefox 4.0 --------------- 2089
Firefox 4.0b12 -----------2051
Safari 5.0.3 -------------- 2018
Firefox 4.0b10 ---------- 1973
Firefox 4.0b8 ------------ 1899
Firefox 4.0b7 ------------ 1600
Internet Explorer 9.0 -- 1543
Firefox 3.6.13 ----------- 1268

Not much change between the last 2 versions of Chrome for me, and I did carry out the v11 benchmark purely on battery power (as I'm not near my mains charger at the moment) which may have had a detrimental affect, but at least certainly wont have helped the v11 scores.

(The "---" are just there as spacers in order to make the figures easier to read and compare, and are not meant to represent a horizontal bar chart)


RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By bug77 on 3/23/2011 7:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your batch is "wrong". Chrome and Opera score about the same, FF4 about half that in Peacekeeper. I'd look into your installation of Chrome.


RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By B3an on 3/23/2011 11:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
How can it be "wrong"... and it's not exactly hard to install a browser correctly. It just varies on different hardware.
With an SSD or atleast newer hardware, Chrome flies, but on old hardware other browsers can perform better.


RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By bug77 on 3/24/2011 5:11:09 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't use a lot more memory than other browsers and it doesn't access the hard drive more often. Why would it be affected by hardware? How old are we talking about?


RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By AnnihilatorX on 3/24/2011 8:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
Jason uses a Mac?


RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By Iger on 3/24/2011 5:24:50 AM , Rating: 3
You're running it wrong! (tm)


RE: Peeacekeeper scores
By callmeroy on 3/24/2011 3:36:23 PM , Rating: 1
Installing a browser wrong?

Let me tell you something with both the variety of options out there today for a web browser AND it being such a "generic use" type of application....

The day a simple web browser actually has to be "configured" property before it can be used....yeah that's the day I boycott that web browser.


Why is this missing?
By RedemptionAD on 3/23/2011 9:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
No IE9 or Opera 11 in the test data, why?




RE: Why is this missing?
By Azethoth on 3/24/2011 4:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah IE9 needs to show up. Even if just to shame MS. Although that would also call for a GPU test suite so we can see who is slacking in catching up to IE9.

Opera 11. Meh, I am happy for it to be lumped in with "Other". I see no way for it to get past its tiny niche unless some heavyweight like Nokia buys it for advertising purposes or something.


RE: Why is this missing?
By Nexos on 3/24/2011 9:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
Lets hope it stays a niche product for a while longer at least. Theres no quicker way to ruin a product than to simplify it for the "average user".


ummm..
By kleinma on 3/23/2011 5:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, note that the HTML5 standards committee has not approved this spec . Google has submitted the technology as a proposal to the HTML Speech Incubator Group, the group in charge of creating a web standard for text-to-speech.


quote:
Aside from support for new standards (including speech-to-text)


also, not for nothing, but wouldn't testing it on a windows machine make more sense since you would be able to test every browser you did, plus IE9 for a full comparison?




RE: ummm..
By micksh on 3/23/2011 5:40:35 PM , Rating: 3
They did test it in Windows 7, read the article. No IE9, though.
And author constantly confuses text-to-speech with speech-to-text.


"I. Text to Speech"
By MrWho on 3/23/2011 6:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you mean "speech recognition"?




RE: "I. Text to Speech"
By GulWestfale on 3/24/2011 12:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
speech to text... and yes, this is an impressive feature. i use dragon naturallyspeaking frequently, and to have the option of simply using a free browser app that will (presumably) be updated frequently, and for free, is quite nice. if they can ever get the accuracy close to 99% that is, but knowing google i'm guessing there is a legion of people working on that already.

and then they will serve us ads based on the words we speak, in realtime... and we will get adblock speech edition to block them.


Windows Touch?
By damianrobertjones on 3/24/2011 4:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hello all,

We know that everything is heading towards 'Touch', so how does Chrome handle Touch? SCrolling, zooming in and out etc.

I only ask as ie9 is better than ie8, Opera are working on a 'Touch' version but who knows when or if that will arrive etc.

P.s. I won an Asus EP121




RE: Windows Touch?
By arthur449 on 3/24/2011 6:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using the chromeTouch extension for about a year and a half now. For scrolling it works great, but zooming in/out isn't implemented yet, that's still handled by ctrl+ and ctrl-


Subjective nonsense
By Shadowmaster625 on 3/24/2011 7:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
I just installed win7 onto a brand new ocz agility 2. I can launch 6 simultaneous firefox 4 tabs AND 6 simultaneous chrome tabs AND 6 simultaneous IE9 tabs all at the same time. But then I click on "new tab" in IE9 it takes 3 seconds to open a new tab. None of these benchmarks capture that failing, and so forgive me for wondering what relevance these tests have. I cant help but wonder what other aspects of real world performance they are not measuring. for example, sometimes my youtube videos stop loading.... yeah they just quit buffering halfway through. Where is the benchmark of that?




And then?
By icanhascpu on 3/24/2011 4:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
GIVE ME BOOKMARK DIVIDERS OR GIVE ME DEATH




Wow
By atlmann10 on 3/28/2011 12:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
I read the article and immediately installed the 11 beta. Wow it kept all my Chrome 10 settings, tabs, toolbars etc, and got a good shot of speed. I have been messing around with chrome for a while. I have also been a FF user pretty much only since beta2/3 (a long time ago). While I have used Chrome off and on up until a version or two ago it did not impress me really, nor was it much faster than FF with the add ons I had running on it. Beta 11 trucks though it is exceptionally fast or so it seems. Of course I just installed it, but I am very impressed with the speed change.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki