maemo.org - Talk
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)
-   Applications (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Google Browser: Chrome (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=23322)

Benson 2008-09-02 03:19
Google Browser: Chrome
 
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/...n-browser.html

Google's got a new browser going beta tomorrow; they've (inadvertently, and then deliberately) released a comic to explain it.

Salient features from a quick skim:
  • Open-source
  • V8 JS VM; improved GC, JIT, and more
  • Webkit
  • One process per tab/plugin
  • Gears built-in
  • Start page rather resembling Iamthewalrus's in functionality
  • Allegedly "light", "clean" UI
    --which means that it might fit ok on a tablet screen, but also that it definitely breaks the UI spec. ;)

And yes, it's available tomorrow; no word on what platforms they'll release binaries for, though. It looks at least as interesting as FF3 as far as desktop browsers on tablets go.

mscdex 2008-09-02 04:31
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Here's to hoping for an n8x0 port :D

Bundyo 2008-09-02 04:54
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Aargh, after at last TC39 agreed on the future of Javascript (ECMAScript 3.1), another engine enters the scene... Oh well, at least there will be good things in the new browser, apart from the "new" IE7-ish interface.

Thesandlord 2008-09-02 05:42
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Looks too powerful for the tablets.
Super multi process application on a poor little NIT? :(

Maybe it will work out though..

Laughing Man 2008-09-02 06:28
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
I hope the tablet can run it. Microb is just giving me headaches now when i open multiple windows of it. trying to open two new web pages results in one or both stop and not load.

Bundyo 2008-09-02 06:41
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
They don't have linux support yet... ARM probably even after that.

benny1967 2008-09-02 07:30
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
And of course, Google will not use this to further gather any data or direct people to their own online services...

... as somebody wrote in an Austrian news forum today: Google is obviously trying hard in becoming the world's most hated company instead of Microsoft. :/


EDIT: Actually, I get the feeling that during the last months Apple became #1 as the world's most hated company, with MS being #2. But this could be a local phenomenon here... Anyway, I certainly agree with it, I don't think MS is all that bad.

Red 2008-09-02 07:32
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Amen to that.

Bundyo 2008-09-02 07:34
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Or at least propagate text ads :)

pycage 2008-09-02 08:21
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
I somehow doubt that the Google browser concept would work well on limited platforms like the NITs. The strength of Google's concept is that every tab is isolated from the rest by running as an own process. On the NIT, however, you don't have that much RAM available, so that it's better to have all tabs running in once process sharing as much resources as possible. That's why Nokia introduced "browserd".
Also, from what I have seen, the Gecko engine is currently a bit faster than Webkit (but let's see what speed improvements Google will achieve with Webkit).

But what's definitely interesting for the NITs is Google's new approach of a JavaScript VM with JIT and proper garbage collection. Since it's opensource, I'm sure it won't take long until Firefox gets the same. :)

Boke 2008-09-02 08:47
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny1967 (Post 219995)
And of course, Google will not use this to further gather any data or direct people to their own online services...

... as somebody wrote in an Austrian news forum today: Google is obviously trying hard in becoming the world's most hated company instead of Microsoft. :/


EDIT: Actually, I get the feeling that during the last months Apple became #1 as the world's most hated company, with MS being #2. But this could be a local phenomenon here... Anyway, I certainly agree with it, I don't think MS is all that bad.
It's open source. So if it gather data from you, you will be able to know what and how.
You can also fork it to direct people to yahoo services :)

benny1967 2008-09-02 09:09
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boke (Post 220012)
It's open source. So if it gather data from you, you will be able to know what and how.
You can also fork it to direct people to yahoo services :)
technically correct, but invalid in practice. do people change firefox's default search engine so they don't feed google? do they avoid google online services? do they make any effort to block google analytics? no.

of course, I myself can do it (or use a different browser in the first place), but I doubt that not having my data hurts google in any way.

Benson 2008-09-02 12:43
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny1967 (Post 220014)
technically correct, but invalid in practice. do people change firefox's default search engine so they don't feed google? do they avoid google online services? do they make any effort to block google analytics? no.

of course, I myself can do it (or use a different browser in the first place), but I doubt that not having my data hurts google in any way.
Then they must not be the most-hated company yet, or people would; and it does mean any technical advances can be used in other browsers. (I was mainly impressed with the JS VM, anyway, so that's good.)

And for those concerned about multi-process vs. multi-thread, think copy-on-write; it's not as big a difference as you might suppose.

lardman 2008-09-02 12:58
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
The strength of Google's concept is that every tab is isolated from the rest by running as an own process. On the NIT, however, you don't have that much RAM available, so that it's better to have all tabs running in once process sharing as much resources as possible. That's why Nokia introduced "browserd".
How large is the overhead in reality? The binary code will be shared anyway as presumably it will mainly be located in a shared lib (to allow just this effect), then there's the per-process data which would otherwise be shared between the tabs - stuff like the menu items, window data/theme stuff, etc.

So how large would the extra overhead really be? I always thought the main disadvantage of using processes vs. threads is in communicating across them, which in this case shouldn't be a major thing as each "tab" would not really need to do much IPC.

Bundyo 2008-09-02 13:25
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pycage (Post 220008)
I somehow doubt that the Google browser concept would work well on limited platforms like the NITs. The strength of Google's concept is that every tab is isolated from the rest by running as an own process. On the NIT, however, you don't have that much RAM available, so that it's better to have all tabs running in once process sharing as much resources as possible. That's why Nokia introduced "browserd".
Also, from what I have seen, the Gecko engine is currently a bit faster than Webkit (but let's see what speed improvements Google will achieve with Webkit).

But what's definitely interesting for the NITs is Google's new approach of a JavaScript VM with JIT and proper garbage collection. Since it's opensource, I'm sure it won't take long until Firefox gets the same. :)
FF3.1 already has JIT with the introduction of tracemonkey. That's why the current nightlies are approximately 7x faster than 3.0 (with JIT switched on that is). I'm running it and can confirm it (though it is kinda unstable yet).

Bundyo 2008-09-02 13:28
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
I'm a little worried about this "tab sandboxing" thing...Does it mean you can't open two tabs (windows, popups) and control one of them from the other?

benny1967 2008-09-02 13:42
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benson (Post 220049)
Then they must not be the most-hated company yet, or people would;
You mean the same way the majority of consumers don't use Windows anymore because they hate Microsoft?

Benson 2008-09-02 14:41
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny1967 (Post 220069)
You mean the same way the majority of cunsumers don't use Windows anymore because they hate Microsoft?

Well, there's a lot more investment in switching OSes than browsers, and many do stop using IE; considering that changing settings in a browser is less still, proportionately more would be doing that (i.e. changing default search) if they hated Google as much.

epage 2008-09-02 15:42
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pycage (Post 220008)
I somehow doubt that the Google browser concept would work well on limited platforms like the NITs. The strength of Google's concept is that every tab is isolated from the rest by running as an own process. On the NIT, however, you don't have that much RAM available, so that it's better to have all tabs running in once process sharing as much resources as possible. That's why Nokia introduced "browserd".
An interesting point that Google makes is that it can cut down on fragmentation and you can better track what the worst offenders in websites, browser features, and plugins.

These I think could be great for the tablets. With shared libraries and "fork"s COW, I imagine there would not be too much overhead to a lot of processes.

coffeedrinker 2008-09-02 16:35
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Well, isn't putting each on in its own process and each one having its own interface essentially just running multiple instances, but under one main window?

I spawn multiple copies of links rather than use one process with several windows. Then when I close that "tab" all the memory is reclaimed and I don't have to worry about any cached pages.

browserd, I think, is just the opposite. It is one rendering engine with the ability to respawn the main window. Closing the window doesn't even have any effect on the browser. Am I understanding this correctly?

tso 2008-09-02 16:47
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
i think browserd is more complex than that.

it seems the window is what holds the current rendered page and data, so that even if browserd dies from a bad script or something else, the different browser windows dont die, except for the one that was connected to whatever it was that made browserd die...

but this is me sitting on the fence, observing the process list...

epage 2008-09-02 17:15
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeedrinker (Post 220120)
Well, isn't putting each on in its own process and each one having its own interface essentially just running multiple instances, but under one main window?

I spawn multiple copies of links rather than use one process with several windows. Then when I close that "tab" all the memory is reclaimed and I don't have to worry about any cached pages.

browserd, I think, is just the opposite. It is one rendering engine with the ability to respawn the main window. Closing the window doesn't even have any effect on the browser. Am I understanding this correctly?
Fork is the main way of creating new processes on Linux. When you fork a process, it does not duplicate all of the memory pages but instead marks them as needing to be copied on the next write. If writes never happens or are rare, than very little memory is spent in having two processes. Also on Linux, threads are implemented through processes that share the same memory pages.
http://linux.about.com/od/commands/l/blcmdl2_fork.htm

So in theory, if there are very few changes to the pages of a virgin webkit and that there is little in common between once rendering pages, then the overhead of separate processes would be negligible.

Disclaimer: I do not know details of browserd. I have no clue what benefits it might have by what structure it might use.

iamthewalrus 2008-09-02 17:35
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epage (Post 220133)
Fork is the main way of creating new processes on Linux. When you fork a process, it does not duplicate all of the memory pages but instead marks them as needing to be copied on the next write. If writes never happens or are rare, than very little memory is spent in having two processes. Also on Linux, threads are implemented through processes that share the same memory pages.
http://linux.about.com/od/commands/l/blcmdl2_fork.htm

So in theory, if there are very few changes to the pages of a virgin webkit and that there is little in common between once rendering pages, then the overhead of separate processes would be negligible.

Disclaimer: I do not know details of browserd. I have no clue what benefits it might have by what structure it might use.
I can remember reading that, unlike Linux, in Windows there is a cost to spawning processes. Maybe that's causing the confusion.

Benson 2008-09-02 18:12
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Should be available for download Noon PDT (1900 UTC)!

wjanowski 2008-09-02 18:50
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
The download link is back up at http://gears.google.com/chrome, but the "accept and install" link seems broken.

EDIT: The link at http://www.google.com/chrome now seems to be working OK.

lbalogh 2008-09-02 18:58
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
http://dl.google.com/update2/installers/ChromeSetup.exe

andrewfblack 2008-09-02 19:02
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
First itT post on google chrome!
itT runs faster on this I swear.

Oberon85 2008-09-02 19:05
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
second post? darn!! fresh from chrome

Reggie 2008-09-02 19:11
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewfblack (Post 220175)
First itT post on google chrome!
itT runs faster on this I swear.
Wow, I agree. Speed is outstanding!

CleverJake 2008-09-02 19:16
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Jesus H tapdancing christ this thing is flying
=D

andrewfblack 2008-09-02 19:23
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
ok if google keeps this thing going this good I will be uninstalling firefox.

wjanowski 2008-09-02 19:24
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Holy crap, this thing is fast! Wish I could move my bookmarks link to the left, though. Haven't found print preview yet, either.

Reggie 2008-09-02 19:31
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
First impressions:
1. Faaast!
2. 78/100 on Acid3 Test
3. Tabs work great
4. Bookmarks are easy to maintain and move around
5. Gears is installed by default - works great with Wordpress
6. Haven't seen a site that doesn't render correctly -- even those heavy in Ajax
7. Flash sites run well
8. Silverlight not yet compatible
9. Mobile Me works

N-Binky 2008-09-02 19:39
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Reggie, all that on the IT?

Here is the source code:
http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved

I'm not a newbie, but since i never compiled anything, could anyone post instructions of getting it to work?

Does it runs faster than Fennec M6? Thank you all.
Saludos, Binky

sjgadsby 2008-09-02 19:49
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie (Post 220191)
1. Faaast!
Yes. Immediately upon launch and any attempt to open a URL thereafter it reports:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrome.exe
The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000005). Click on OK to terminate the application.

Reggie 2008-09-02 19:52
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by N-Binky (Post 220196)
Reggie, all that on the IT?
Binky, no just on XP.

sjgadsby, really? Are you running it on XP or Vista?

sjgadsby 2008-09-02 19:54
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie (Post 220201)
Are you running it on XP or Vista?
XP Service Pack 3 inside Parallels 3 on Mac OS X 10.4.11

EDIT: It's working on another XP machine. One without Parallels.

Reggie 2008-09-02 19:56
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjgadsby (Post 220202)
XP Service Pack 3 inside Parallels 3 on Mac OS X 10.4.11.
Hmm, it might be Parallels. I'll try it on XP via VMWare Fusion later tonight when I get home.

andrewfblack 2008-09-02 19:59
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
only thing I havn't been able to do with Chrome so far is access my VNC server over browser with it.

timsamoff 2008-09-02 20:03
Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie (Post 220191)
6. Haven't seen a site that doesn't render correctly -- even those heavy in Ajax
Mine. Arg!

-T.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11.
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

vBulletin® Version 3.8.8