Google has barely released Chrome 1.0, but the company is already hard at work on version 2.0 of its web browser. They released a pre-beta for Chrome 2.0, which comes with a lot of new features, including ones that should've already been in Chrome 1.0. In addition, it seems as if the Mac and Linux versions of Chrome are getting closer.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-08-02
Their strategy is "release early, release often". I don't know about other people, but I like it. They can get feedback on new features more quickly and enhance the quality more rapidly. Would you prefer it if they waited a year before releasing a new version that's packed with new features?
Member since:2005-07-06
I'd agree with that. As I said, I like Chrome, and yes, it's great that they update often. In some ways, having small updates is easier for users to deal with versus a large scale change where so many things have changed it's difficult to get your bearings.
My point is though, compare version 1 (which itself was hardly feature complete) to the forthcoming version 2. Does it warrant a whole version number? Not from what I've seen so far. v1.5 at the very least.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
That's exactly why I like Chrome so much. Reading the release notes above, I cringed at the thought of having browser profiles. Wtf are they good for? Couldn't this be left up to the new plug-in framework? Scripts are in the same league - I don't want it, I don't need it, why isn't this a plug-in? Autoscroll? Same thing.
Docking of tabs? Why don't they just tap into the functionality *built-in* into Windows 7 to do that, and provide a plug-in for this for Vista and XP users?
I choose Chrome because it focuses on what a browser is supposed to do: render webpages. I don't need it to tell me that websites have updated their RSS feeds (I don't even use RSS at all), or that my cat needs its dinner.
I'm keeping a very weary eye on Chrome 2.0.
Edited 2009-01-09 11:02 UTC
Member since:2008-02-26
Why in hell would they want to get dependent on the functionality of Windows 7?
What about Linux and Mac OS X?
It's much easier to create single universal code than code 7 versions for 7 operating systems.
Use K-meleon. Or K-ninja. It's much lighter than Chrome.
Member since:2006-02-04
I'm just going to quote a previous post by myself because I feel the point bears repeating:
no...
a browser needs to render webpages AND allow you to navigate through them easily. hence the word BROWSER.
which is where things like bookmark management, tab management, "search for" in the context menu, the unsung little plugins like linky and diggler, social bookmarking plugins, rss, stumble-upon bars, mouse gestures and all the "fluff" actually matter. In getting people where they want to go efficiently.
Member since:2007-12-04
Member since:2005-07-06
I think they will quick catch up. I don't think they rushed the product. Rather, I think they're just not sure about what features they could benefit from and how. For example, popup-blocker is a must in today's browsers and it's somewhat ridicolous Chrome must rely on 3rd party add-on for that.
However, I think they will quickly match most of features other browsers have. They need to or the whole Chrome project would jeopardize.
Personally, I installed v1 to be able to check my websites against it.
Member since:2006-01-11
Member since:2007-03-04
Member since:2005-07-12
I would remove Safari from your list of 'expecting more' - because to be frank Chrome is leaving safari in the dust in terms of functionality. While Chrome is still like a trip in the wayback machine, it's more like going back to netscape 4.7 than it is going back to the IE 3 experience that Safari delivers in terms of it's UI. They just cloned the UI from IE 5.2 (which always lagged behind the windows version) and said "Ah, close enough"
Seriously, from a user interface (not a rendering) standpoint, what does Safari actually do that's any different from IE3? Answer: It has tabs... OOH, I'm impressed.
Compared to Chrome (which is seeing pretty good active development), FF (who steals every feature they can from, you guessed it), Opera (which innovated most of what is touted as features in other browsers today - five to eight years ago) - Let's face it, Safari is stuck in 1995 - and Apple likes it that way because they cater to people more into form than functionality.
Even if thier idea of form and style has all the grace of a hospital ward.
Edited 2009-01-10 10:45 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-11-22
Member since:
2005-07-06
Don't get me wrong, I like Chrome. It's pretty decent, and certainly zippier than FF3.
And I'm not calling for bloat or anything, but it's hardly feature packed. I've just updated to the latest version 2 alpha, and there's still no easy way to subscribe to RSS feeds. I've heard it's in the pipeline, but come on, should have been in v1.0.
They really need to improve the situation for extensions. The option to have greasemonkey like scripts is a welcome start, but man, am I missing Adblock.
Updates to CSS engine doesn't warrant the v2 stamp. Nor does adding auto-complete and spellchecking features that should have been there in v1.0.
I'm not trying to shoot the devs at Chrome down or anything - they've done an impressive job. But they have to remember they've entered the browser space at a time when users expect a certain level of core functionality, and Chrome still isn't hitting all the right buttons. They'll get there, eventually. In the meantime, it seems unjust to be banging on about all the things Chrome users may be getting in the future, when these same features are what FF/IE(>=7)/Opera/Konq/Safari users have been accustomed to for quite some time.