Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jan 2010 00:04 UTC
Google Finally! Google has released version 4.0 of Chrome for Windows, bringing the much-anticipated extensions framework out of beta and into the stable channel. Currently, more than 1500 extensions are already available. Version 4.0 carries more features than just extensions, though.
Order by: Score:
Great work, Google!
by obsidian on Tue 26th Jan 2010 01:02 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

Chrome is making great progress. I've recently noticed that it renders a number of websites more correctly than Firefox too. May look at switching to Chrome very soon - keep up the great work, Google!

Reply Score: 3

Version Marketing?
by iaefai on Tue 26th Jan 2010 02:30 UTC
iaefai
Member since:
2009-12-14

Good job to Chrome and all, but I was just thinking that they are a little over a year since original release (2008 Sep 2 by: wikipedia) - say we give them 1.5 years.

Isn't that a really short time to generate a 4th major version number?

Firefox did the same thing in about 5 years, and Netscape did the same thing in 4 years.

In the throws of Microsoft competing with Netscape, they did 4 versions in about 2 years.

I just seems to me that they are using a version number for marketing purposes.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Version Marketing?
by MechR on Tue 26th Jan 2010 03:46 UTC in reply to "Version Marketing?"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

Firefox has been jumping by arbitrary fractions since 1.0. If anything, Chrome consistently incrementing by ones is less marketing-driven.

Plus they are developing pretty quickly, partly due to starting so bare-bones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_chrome#Release_history

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Version Marketing?
by kwanbis on Tue 26th Jan 2010 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Version Marketing?"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

Version number is always arbitrary.

But the point is that from 1.0 to 4.0 in 1.5 years is tooooo marketing.

If mozilla wanted marketing, they could have called 3.6 4.0.

But they didn't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Version Marketing?
by MechR on Tue 26th Jan 2010 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Version Marketing?"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

Version number is always arbitrary.

Then why do you care if Chrome goes up by 1's instead of 0.1's?

But the point is that from 1.0 to 4.0 in 1.5 years is tooooo marketing.

If by "marketing" you mean "simpler," then I guess so. Since it's all arbitrary, you might as well cut the modesty and estimation and decimals, and just increment by one every time. Let people who care read the release notes if they want to find out "how much" has changed.

If mozilla wanted marketing, they could have called 3.6 4.0.

But they didn't.

... This time. Previously they jumped from 2.0 straight to 3.0, and the plan after 3.7 is to skip to 4.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Version Marketing?
by kwanbis on Tue 26th Jan 2010 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Version Marketing?"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm meaning arbitrary because there is no "law" on what to do.

That is how Microsoft went from Word 2.0 for Windows to Word 6.0. Or how WordPerfect for Windows started at 5.1.

Now, "normally", products start at 1.0, and grow in version number as in MAJOR.Minor updates.

So, no, going from 1.0 to 4.0 in 1.5 years is NOT normal, and it is a marketing plot for sure: Chrome 4.0 should be better than Firefox 3.5, but still worst than IE 8.0, so probably in another year, Chrome would be at 8.0.

And I don't care. It's just an observation.

By the way. Mozilla jumped from 2.0 to 3.0 after 1.5 years. And the changes from 2.0 to 3.0 where major enough to warrant that option.

Same time it took google to go from 1.0 to 4.0.

Edited 2010-01-26 14:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Version Marketing?
by Fergy on Thu 28th Jan 2010 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Version Marketing?"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

If by "marketing" you mean "simpler," then I guess so. Since it's all arbitrary, you might as well cut the modesty and estimation and decimals, and just increment by one every time. Let people who care read the release notes if they want to find out "how much" has changed.

Firefox 1.0: first real release with nice extension manager
Firefox 1.5: great update manager and a big improvement to extension mananger
Firefox 2.0: spellcheck, session restore, phishing protection
Firefox 3.0: faster javascript, resume download, tab scrolling, awesomebar, Full page zoom, better password management, bookmark tags, much lower memory usage
Firefox 3.5: faster javascript, HTML5 <video><audio><Drag and drop><offline>, improved awesomebar
Firefox 3.6: faster javascipt, improved HTML5 like video, personas

Chrome 1.0: fast startup, fast javascript, fast rendering
Chrome 2.0: ehm?
Chrome 3.0: ehm? extensions?
Chrome 4.0: ehm? something like personas?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Version Marketing?
by Kroc on Tue 26th Jan 2010 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Version Marketing?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Chrome’s version number is for developer’s only. They do not relay it to the end user at all. It’s not used in any marketing, anywhere on their download page. The _only_ place a user can see the number is in the about box.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Version Marketing?
by smitty on Tue 26th Jan 2010 05:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Version Marketing?"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Firefox has been jumping by arbitrary fractions since 1.0.

Any system at all is somewhat arbitrary, but Firefox does have a system.

They reserve the major version updates (2,3,4) for releases that have major changes to the UI. For updates that change the browser core but only slightly update the UI, they bump by .5 instead (except they went for 3.6 instead of 3.10 because it's less confusing to people)

"Major" UI change is a bit of a judgment call, of course, but I don't think they've done anything too crazy. If they were being marketing driven, it seems like they'd update a whole version every release.

Edited 2010-01-26 05:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Version Marketing?
by righard on Tue 26th Jan 2010 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Version Marketing?"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Look at the version numbers:
1.0
2.0
3.0.195
4.0.249
4.0.306
You that the second 0 never increases? If they consistently increment by ones for anything else then marketing purposes the second zero would be useless.

the version number is done for marketing purposes, because there are many people who rather use IE6 then Chrome 3.0 because the verion of IE is higher, thus better. It's like a maskerated version of what distributions like Slackware did.

Not that I care though ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Version Marketing?
by Kroc on Tue 26th Jan 2010 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Version Marketing?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

the version number is done for marketing purposes


Except that it’s not used in any marketing, anywhere. It’s done for developer’s purposes.

Both IE and Chrome do not advertise their version number. IE6 does not say "IE6" on the desktop—it says Internet Explorer. Not many users could tell you what version of IE they are on. Some people can’t even tell me what version of Windows they are on, and it says "Windows XP" everytime the computer boots.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Version Marketing?
by kwanbis on Tue 26th Jan 2010 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Version Marketing?"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

Really? Just read the news, like for example "Chrome 4.0 brings, blah, blah, blah". Or "IE6 is vulnerable, blah, blah, blah".

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Version Marketing?
by Kroc on Tue 26th Jan 2010 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Version Marketing?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Geek news cares about version numbers. Google’s advertising and website does not include the version number.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Version Marketing?
by kwanbis on Wed 27th Jan 2010 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Version Marketing?"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

Any tech site would have version number.

Non tech sites get information from either tech sites, or tech guys, so 99% of them, print version number.

If you where right, why aren't they using the more common during dev 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 version number, and when they think they are ready, call it 1.0?

Reply Score: 2

Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev
by MajorTom on Tue 26th Jan 2010 02:52 UTC
MajorTom
Member since:
2005-07-09

Mac users still have a lot to wait for though, as they don't even have extensions yet.

Chrome for Mac, in the dev channel, has almost feature-parity with Chrome 4 final Windows.

I've been using it as my primary – and only – browser for two or three months and extensions have been working for a few weeks now. I personally use Flashblock (who can live without it?) and Google Wave Notifier (I still want to believe) without any glitch.

Bookmark sync works too and, if the bookmark manager still needs a bit of polish, Chrome for Mac's stability is perfect – never experienced a crash with it.

Other companies than Google would not call it a dev version, but a final version. If you are on a Mac, try it, you cannot find a better browser (and I don't think you'll be able to find one for some time).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev
by elmimmo on Tue 26th Jan 2010 03:02 UTC in reply to "Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

> Chrome for Mac, in the dev channel, has almost feature-parity with Chrome 4 final Windows

Does the Mac dev channel version autoupdate yet?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev
by MajorTom on Tue 26th Jan 2010 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev"
MajorTom Member since:
2005-07-09

Does the Mac dev channel version autoupdate yet?

Yes, beautifully. It has the autoupdate feature for ages, now (in Google time, I mean).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev
by MajorTom on Tue 26th Jan 2010 03:23 UTC in reply to "Chrome Mac 4.0.302.2 dev"
MajorTom Member since:
2005-07-09

Forgot to mention that it plays HTML5/h.264 video as well as on other platforms (that is with minor glitches, but YouTube/HTML5 is what, one week old?).

Also forgot the mandatory link: http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel#TOC-Mac

Click on "Dev channel: GoogleChrome.dmg", accept the EULA and you're done.

Reply Score: 1

Bookmarks the new lock-in?
by phoenix on Tue 26th Jan 2010 03:47 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Opera has their version that only works with Opera.

Chrome has their version that only works with Chrome.

If only there was a cross-browser sync plugin that would keep your bookmarks in sync in each browser ...

Wait, there is ... http://www.xmarks.com Why bother with 1-browser-only lock-in?

Reply Score: 11

RE: Bookmarks the new lock-in?
by Stratoukos on Tue 26th Jan 2010 05:10 UTC in reply to "Bookmarks the new lock-in?"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I don't get the point of cross-browser bookmark sync. You are going to use the bookmark sync to keep your bookmarks updated on browsers you regularly use. Since you regularly use these computers, chances are that you are going to use the same browser everywhere.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bookmarks the new lock-in?
by phoenix on Tue 26th Jan 2010 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Bookmarks the new lock-in?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Chrome isn't available on all OSes (for example, there's no FreeBSD release). Not all browsers work the same on all OSes (Safari on Windows vs Safari on MacOS X, Firefox on anything vs Firefox on Windows, etc). Not all browsers are available in portable versions that can run off a USB stick.

Hence, having a cross-browser bookmark sync is very handy.

Reply Score: 5

steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

This doesn't exactly count as a release, but you might be interested anyway:

http://chromium.jaggeri.com/

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Bookmarks the new lock-in?
by phoenix on Tue 26th Jan 2010 05:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bookmarks the new lock-in?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yeah, I know about that. I've been following the progress on http://forums.freebsd.org

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bookmarks the new lock-in?
by unoengborg on Tue 26th Jan 2010 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Bookmarks the new lock-in?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't get the point of cross-browser bookmark sync. You are going to use the bookmark sync to keep your bookmarks updated on browsers you regularly use. Since you regularly use these computers, chances are that you are going to use the same browser everywhere.


If you used a standard way to sync bookmarks, it would be easier to switch browser if you like.

If a standard way was used, it would also be possible for other types of software than browsers to use this information. E.g you could create a program that used your bookmars as a some sort of search filter that searched the internet for new sites that might interest you based on what you already like or regularly visit.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Bookmarks the new lock-in?
by Soulbender on Tue 26th Jan 2010 18:45 UTC in reply to "Bookmarks the new lock-in?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Google's bookmarks are stored in Netscape bookmark files in folders on google docs. Doesn't take a genius to create plugins for other browser to retrieve and parse those.

Reply Score: 2

SRWare Iron
by Dirge on Tue 26th Jan 2010 05:34 UTC
Dirge
Member since:
2005-07-14

I might wait until SRWare Iron catches up with the 4.0 release.

Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome?
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php

Reply Score: 3

RE: SRWare Iron
by Kroc on Tue 26th Jan 2010 08:40 UTC in reply to "SRWare Iron"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome?


Paranoia.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: SRWare Iron
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 26th Jan 2010 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE: SRWare Iron"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome?


Paranoia.
"

I'm not a "privacy gadfly" (to borrow David's turn of phrase from a few weeks back), but I do run Iron on my laptop - primarily because it doesn't include the auto-updater. I dislike auto-updaters in general, but especially on a laptop that often gets used on dialup connections.

The Google update process also has some malware-like behaviour that soured me on it. Not in the sense that it's malicious, but in that it's tenacious about relaunching itself if you kill the process - or even delete the executable.

Reply Score: 4

RE: SRWare Iron
by dylansmrjones on Tue 26th Jan 2010 11:43 UTC in reply to "SRWare Iron"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah, that's not a bad alternative to Google Chrome. One could also just compile Chromium locally.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SRWare Iron
by Zifre on Wed 27th Jan 2010 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE: SRWare Iron"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Yeah, that's not a bad alternative to Google Chrome.

Yes, Iron is nice, but unfortunately, they don't really keep up with upstream Chromium releases.

One could also just compile Chromium locally.

No, that doesn't work. Google's official Chrome build is almost exactly the same as Chromium, with just a few minor changes (such as branding). Unless you change the source code, you get basically the same thing as Chrome.

Reply Score: 2

wow.
by graigsmith on Tue 26th Jan 2010 05:49 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

wow theres alot of extensions for this already

Reply Score: 0

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 26th Jan 2010 08:39 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

They re-enabled web fonts too! Hurray!
The differences between Safari and Chrome do get annoying.

Reply Score: 1

Chrome *still* needs improved bookmarks
by obsidian on Tue 26th Jan 2010 09:09 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

Just tried Chrome 4 (On Linux).

Generally pretty good. However, there is still one area that needs big improvement - bookmark management.

In Firefox, I click on the "Display bookmarks" button in the toolbar, and a *scrollable* list of bookmarks pops out from the left of the screen.
Clean, simple, friendly and powerful.

Chrome's handling of bookmarks, in comparison, is pretty bad. Nowhere near as easy to use. I have a *very* long bookmarks list, so being able to scroll down them is a must-have.

There also seems to be no way of putting a "Display bookmarks" button on the toolbar. You just have to faff around with the ugly bookmarks thing up at the top right (under the spanner/wrench).

This surprises me. A "display bookmarks" button is almost as essential as a "back" or "refresh" button".
Why Google chose not to include a button like that is a mystery.

So, although Chrome is getting better, bookmark-handling must be improved.

Edited 2010-01-26 09:14 UTC

Reply Score: 5

MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

There also seems to be no way of putting a "Display bookmarks" button on the toolbar.

There is a way:
http://lifehacker.com/5350737/add-a-bookmark-button-to-google-chrom...

Getting it to work when you don't launch Chrome from that particular shortcut (e.g. clicking an associated html file in Windows Explorer) is more annoying. To cover those cases too, open Windows Explorer, to go to Tools -> Folder Options -> File Types, and add the --bookmark-menu command-line flag to the launch command for each Chrome-associated filetype. (Click the Advanced button to edit the command.)

Edit: Oh wait, you're on Linux. Disregard the Windows Explorer advice, then.

Edited 2010-01-26 10:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

fakeroot Member since:
2010-01-27

Totally agree with obsidian - the only thing stops me to switch completely to chrome is the lack of bookmarks management firefox-like (at least for Linux)

Reply Score: 1

Ad blockers
by WorknMan on Tue 26th Jan 2010 09:14 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I didn't know Chrome had ad blocking extensions, so might have to give it a try now that it's relevant ;) Which one of the ad-blocking extensions is recommended? Do they have any that auto-update like the Firefox one?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ad blockers
by Erunno on Tue 26th Jan 2010 09:20 UTC in reply to "Ad blockers"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

Chrome is not able to block ads, it can only hide them after they have been requested, downloaded and decoded. You still get all the tasty cookies from advertisers and you still have to bear with badly written sites which cause the engine to block while waiting for some advertisement or tracking server to respond. Chrome simply lacks the necessary APIs.

Having said that, Adthwart is based on Adblock Plus and works with filter subscriptions like EasyList to a certain degree:

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccd...

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Ad blockers
by MechR on Tue 26th Jan 2010 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Ad blockers"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

Chrome is not able to block ads, it can only hide them after they have been requested, downloaded and decoded. You still get all the tasty cookies from advertisers and you still have to bear with badly written sites which cause the engine to block while waiting for some advertisement or tracking server to respond. Chrome simply lacks the necessary APIs.

The good news is, the APIs are being worked on; see Comment 9 here:
http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ad blockers
by Erunno on Tue 26th Jan 2010 10:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ad blockers"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

The good news is, the APIs are being worked on; see Comment 9 here:
http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript


Interesting. Judging by the feature list Google is going even one step further than Mozilla and is building something akin to Adblock Plus right into the core of Chrome, including an UI for filter management. Bonus points for extending the system to HTTP referrers and cookies. I'm curious now how the final implementation will turn out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ad blockers
by Panajev on Tue 26th Jan 2010 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ad blockers"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

If that allows extension developers, like NoScript's author, to use those facilities to make their extension work like it did on Firefox good.

If Google's answer is... nah, you do not need NoScript after all... we have our own alternative... well I would stick with Firefox.

Bookmark tags (thanks SQLite ;) ) + Mozilla Weave sync + Live Bookmarks + NoScript... the reasons why I still use Firefox over Chrome.

Edited 2010-01-26 12:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Ad blockers
by Invincible Cow on Tue 26th Jan 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ad blockers"
Linux version is damn fast
by Christiansenn on Tue 26th Jan 2010 19:47 UTC
Christiansenn
Member since:
2010-01-26

I am running the Linux version and it is damn fast!
Firefox is getting slower and slower in comparison.

Reply Score: 1

Google owns my desktop
by buff on Wed 27th Jan 2010 03:21 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I use gmail, caldendar and docs. I decided since Google owns all my data I might as will give in and switch to Chrome too. I added a couple of extensions. I miss come of the included functionality like keywords in Firefox. I added the keywords extension but it is clumsy. I wonder sometimes what happens if a Google data center burns up. Will I lose all my data?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Google owns my desktop
by tomcat on Wed 27th Jan 2010 03:53 UTC in reply to "Google owns my desktop"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I use gmail, caldendar and docs. I decided since Google owns all my data I might as will give in and switch to Chrome too. I added a couple of extensions. I miss come of the included functionality like keywords in Firefox. I added the keywords extension but it is clumsy. I wonder sometimes what happens if a Google data center burns up. Will I lose all my data?


You're screwed.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Caraibes
by Caraibes on Wed 27th Jan 2010 10:46 UTC
Caraibes
Member since:
2007-08-06

I used Chrome 4.x exclusively on my Ubuntu 9.10 desktop fr about a month (dec/january)... I liked it, but finally came back to Firefox, as it is simply a better browsing experience as of today... Speed isn't everything.
The AdBlock+ in Firefox is much better than Chrome's Adthwart.
Xmarks seems better in FF than in Chrome.
Bookmarks are better handled in FF...
There's no compact theme in Chrome such as FF "Classic Compact".
Mozilla Weave rocks !
So, as much as I have switched the vast majority of my Windows customers to Chrome, it still doesn't cut it for me as main browser.
However, it improves at such a fast pace, we don't know what tomorrow will be made of ;)

Reply Score: 1

Comment by stanbr
by stanbr on Wed 27th Jan 2010 13:29 UTC
stanbr
Member since:
2009-05-22

Am I the only one worried about the fact that Google now have information about what is my favorite websites, all my emails, all my phone numbers (if you are using an Android phone), all you voice messages (if you use Google voice), all your messages from google talk, all websites I visit (if you use their DNS), an unique ID on my webbrowser (if you use chrome), your calendar (google calendar users), your RSS list (google reader), controls the results of my internet searchs, ... ? All this informations on the hands of a marketing company...

Dude, that freaking scares me. Sure, I know I have alternatives, but most of them kinda suck... =/

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by stanbr
by arokh on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by stanbr"
arokh Member since:
2008-01-29

You're right, better revert to pen and paper at once. Better get rid of the computer and move into the mountains so they can't get to you. I shouldn't even be writing this, they might be watching.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by stanbr
by stanbr on Thu 28th Jan 2010 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by stanbr"
stanbr Member since:
2009-05-22

Give me all that in informations you trust so much google to have, all you agenda, your current location all the time (google latitude), all your mails, and let's see what I can get with that. Shall we?

Reply Score: 1

No 64bit? worthless
by Shannara on Wed 27th Jan 2010 22:52 UTC
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

Come on Google, get with the century already ...

Reply Score: 1

RE: No 64bit? worthless
by buff on Thu 28th Jan 2010 04:20 UTC in reply to "No 64bit? worthless"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

Google doesn't really care about bookmarks. They want you to use *their* search engine. When I use to work on firefox back in the day Mozilla did research and found the majority of users don't use bookmarks anymore. They just search. You will see this a lot with younger users. They either know the site or they search for it. Power users and techies use them more but this is a smaller market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No 64bit? worthless
by Shannara on Fri 29th Jan 2010 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE: No 64bit? worthless"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Umm .. replied to wrong comment?

Reply Score: 1

Yawn
by pepa on Thu 28th Jan 2010 08:27 UTC
pepa
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't get the Chrome excitement. I thought I had been having all these touted features on Chromium (for Linux) for months..? Is Chromium (5.0.306.0) so far ahead of Chrome? What am I missing??

Reply Score: 2