Comments on: Google Chrome http://www.eddiefast.com/2008/09/google-chrome/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:53:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Ian http://www.eddiefast.com/2008/09/google-chrome/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Ian Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:37:30 +0000 http://www.eddiefast.com/?p=212#comment-197 My take on this new browser was that it forced current browsers to focus on optimization a bit more than they have been. JavaScript, the foundation behind all these online apps that Google is pushing, needed a kick in the butt and Chrome did a good job there. Considering that most users use more than on app at any given time, and considering that Google wants those users to be using their online apps, it makes perfect sense to make each tab a separate process (With its' own JavaScript engine) since users would not accept all their apps coming to a halt due to one faulty web page. If you really want to benchmark Chrome against the other browsers, throw some JavaScript at the browsers and compare that. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html My take on this new browser was that it forced current browsers to focus on optimization a bit more than they have been. JavaScript, the foundation behind all these online apps that Google is pushing, needed a kick in the butt and Chrome did a good job there. Considering that most users use more than on app at any given time, and considering that Google wants those users to be using their online apps, it makes perfect sense to make each tab a separate process (With its’ own JavaScript engine) since users would not accept all their apps coming to a halt due to one faulty web page.

If you really want to benchmark Chrome against the other browsers, throw some JavaScript at the browsers and compare that.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html

]]> By: Anm http://www.eddiefast.com/2008/09/google-chrome/comment-page-1/#comment-198 Anm Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:42:24 +0000 http://www.eddiefast.com/?p=212#comment-198 Okay, I've heald back on commenting on this anywhere else, but since its you... I think this is a very wise move by Google. Browsers currently break a fundamental assumption of OS: application independence via processes. It's not just about memory leaks. It about security (cross-site scripting), accountability (which web page is eating my CPU), and developer friendliness. The last one is key for Google for their own internal development in a dynamic wep-app driven world (same "app" for hosting app and coding documentation, tracking resource consumption, and identifying blame on the correct component). I've been griping about this for a while (years?), but nowhere public. In fact, I already use multiple process browser for these issues, albeit by switching by FireFox and Safari regularly. Yes, they are the number two and three icons after the immobile Finder. These current state of affairs is so bad it has grown past developer and security/administration issues. It is a user issue. Worse, none of the four main browser developers are addressing the issue. Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, or Opera. The issue has bee ignored as unsolvable (by making invalid assumptions about what a browser is) or too complex for the current momentum. And while I strongly agree with (almost) all other "improvements" Google made to the browser, I view them as opportunistic fluff added because some things needed to be designed in the process of starting from (near) scratch. It also acts to differentiate the browser during the initial marketing drive (a comic by a well known artist?). I would argue the marketing is and new browser push are short term pokes to require the other four browser developers to respond. If that was not the case, they would not have done this open source (compare to Safari which is also based on the open-source WebKit). I fully expect one of two results: FireFox doesn't adapt and Chrome _slowly_ becomes the new default open source alternative. Chrome is a considered a success. Or... FireFox and others do respond, also becoming multi-process based (regardless of other changes), and Google drops its marketing move, leaving the system to be a test bed of Google-specific browser technologies. Chrome is considered a failure. Either way, Google gets what it wants. The latter may even be cheaper, as Google gets to wash its hands of browser maintenance. Of course, this ignores Android, which needed a browser anyway. I'm actually happy to see both iPhone/Safari and Android/Chrome share a web renderer. As for Firefox market share: who cares? Yes, the audience for Google Chrome is the same as FireFox, but why should FireFox have this pedestal status among open source browsers as long as there are open source options (for learning, testing, experimentation, decomposition/recomposition/embedding, and deep level trust and authentication). I aplaud Google whole heartedly. Okay, I’ve heald back on commenting on this anywhere else, but since its you…

I think this is a very wise move by Google. Browsers currently break a fundamental assumption of OS: application independence via processes. It’s not just about memory leaks. It about security (cross-site scripting), accountability (which web page is eating my CPU), and developer friendliness. The last one is key for Google for their own internal development in a dynamic wep-app driven world (same “app” for hosting app and coding documentation, tracking resource consumption, and identifying blame on the correct component).

I’ve been griping about this for a while (years?), but nowhere public. In fact, I already use multiple process browser for these issues, albeit by switching by FireFox and Safari regularly. Yes, they are the number two and three icons after the immobile Finder.

These current state of affairs is so bad it has grown past developer and security/administration issues. It is a user issue.

Worse, none of the four main browser developers are addressing the issue. Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, or Opera. The issue has bee ignored as unsolvable (by making invalid assumptions about what a browser is) or too complex for the current momentum.

And while I strongly agree with (almost) all other “improvements” Google made to the browser, I view them as opportunistic fluff added because some things needed to be designed in the process of starting from (near) scratch. It also acts to differentiate the browser during the initial marketing drive (a comic by a well known artist?).

I would argue the marketing is and new browser push are short term pokes to require the other four browser developers to respond. If that was not the case, they would not have done this open source (compare to Safari which is also based on the open-source WebKit). I fully expect one of two results: FireFox doesn’t adapt and Chrome _slowly_ becomes the new default open source alternative. Chrome is a considered a success. Or… FireFox and others do respond, also becoming multi-process based (regardless of other changes), and Google drops its marketing move, leaving the system to be a test bed of Google-specific browser technologies. Chrome is considered a failure. Either way, Google gets what it wants. The latter may even be cheaper, as Google gets to wash its hands of browser maintenance.

Of course, this ignores Android, which needed a browser anyway. I’m actually happy to see both iPhone/Safari and Android/Chrome share a web renderer.

As for Firefox market share: who cares? Yes, the audience for Google Chrome is the same as FireFox, but why should FireFox have this pedestal status among open source browsers as long as there are open source options (for learning, testing, experimentation, decomposition/recomposition/embedding, and deep level trust and authentication).

I aplaud Google whole heartedly.

]]>