RSSGoogle's '30% faster' Chrome is just the 2.0 beta released as RTM
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 21, 2009, 5:56 PM
Up until today, Google had been distinguishing between development tracks 1 and 2 of its Chrome Web browser. Track 1 (last known build version 1.0.154.65) was the company's production edition, though a link on the same page where you could download 1.0 could take you to the "test" version instead, version 2.0.177.1. Google's always had interesting variations on the "beta" theme.
Anyway, today the company stated on its blog that it's "updating to a faster version" of Chrome, quoting an internal benchmark score giving its JavaScript processing 32.1% better speed in the new version over the old version. Well, that new version -- as Betanews verified today -- is actually 2.0.177.1, which is the same "new version" it's been for a few weeks now. Users of version 2 -- which other services had been distributing as the "most recent release" -- will notice no difference in performance.
The difference that some users will see is that there's no test version choice anymore; Google's download page takes the user straight to 2.0.177.1 for the first time. Gone are the links to the 1.0 editions, and users with 1.0 builds may (or may not) notice their browsers are being updated as we speak. In fact, in Betanews tests Thursday afternoon, Google's server download speed was nothing anyone would want to shout from the rooftops about.
"Making the Web faster continues to be our main area of focus," reads a post on the Chrome blog by Chrome engineer Darin Fisher this afternoon. "Thanks to a new version of WebKit and an update to our JavaScript engine, V8, interactive web pages will run even faster. We've also made sure that JavaScript keeps running fast even when you have lots of tabs open. Try opening a bunch of Web applications and then running your favorite benchmark."
As for anyone who's been confused by the version numbers, Fisher added, "We're referring to this as Chrome 2, but that's mainly a metric to help us keep track of changes internally. We don't give too much weight to version numbers and will continue to roll out useful updates as often as possible."
Betanews tests (which do not use Google's own V8 benchmark algorithm, preferring to use independently developed or derived tests instead) show the latest build of Google Chrome 2 to be about 16.3% faster than Chrome 1 on an identically configured test virtual system. Prompted by reader requests, Betanews is building a new physical test platform that will enable us to gauge performance under different versions of Windows on the same hardware.
woops! double posted ;)
Score: 0
|I've tried all the new browsers.... always go back to IE8!
It's just so much more faster and secure.
Score: -3
|If you want Chrome without fingerprint, without GoogleUpdate.exe, and with adblocking, there is such thing - it is called Iron. Look it up http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php
Score: 0
|My level of trust in Chrome, and in Google, is somewhere below zero. I no longer use Google as a search engine.
Score: 0
|I'm still waiting for a solution to block ads in Chrome without having to proxy it through another piece of software.
Score: 1
|I'm still waiting for a solution where Chrome does not autoupdate itself and installing and using any Google software doesn't trigger off GoogleUpdate.exe.
Score: 2
|morriscox: http://www.ghacks.net/20...google-chrome-adblocker/ but the proxies like privoxy and admuncher do the trick just fine.
Sumone: http://portableapps.com/node/15677
Score: 1
|Here it is: http://www.adsweep.org/
Use the Dev Channel version of Chrome and follow the instructions to enable extensions though a command line switch (--enable-extensions I think). Use the .crx version on the Adsweep page and it'll install itself automatically. Chrome has full extension support now but lacks the UI to manage those extensions. This adblocker seems to work about as well as Privoxy without having the luggage of another background process. It'll hold us over until someone builds something more comprehensive like Adblock Plus.
Score: 1
|or you could just use a host file to prevent your computer from connecting to selected internet hosts. This is an easy and effective way to protect you from many types of spyware, reduces bandwidth use, blocks certain pop-up traps, and blocks most advertising.
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/
Score: 1
|"Prompted by reader requests, Betanews is building a new physical test platform that will enable us to gauge performance under different versions of Windows on the same hardware."
Thanks for listening!
Score: 3
|I believe it's "seat of the pants" technology.
Score: 0
|It would be nice for google to release a un*x version, ever since version 1 there was talk
of a linux version in development pipe line.
Score: 1
|"Well, that new version -- as Betanews verified today -- is actually 2.0.177.1, which is the same "new version" it's been for a few weeks now."
To defend Google, they have essentially four channels which you can choose from to run Chrome. Stable is always going to be the oldest build. Beta is newer but still behind Dev, which is updated once a week. And the source code itself is updated every time someone checks in changes, more frequently than Dev (if you don't mind compiling it yourself).
Lots of users are testing Beta, and someone at Google decided the build was stable enough and complete enough to promote to Google Chrome 2.0 Stable.
BTW with the latest Dev Chrome, it looks like performance is up a bit. Since the last Dev build, it seems Chrome now outdoes Safari 4.0 beta on the Peacemaker benchmark (in my own personal test, at least).
Score: 0
|frankly, you can have a quad core, boo koos of memory and a t1, but if a server is on vacation, then you may as well have some tea and crumpets while you wait for the browser to ascertain the data the user requested.
Score: 1
|You do realize that a t1 is extremely slow today, right? My home connection is over 32 times as fast as a t1 (in receiving data, which is what I do mostly), and about 8 times as fast as a t1 sending.
Score: 0
|Heh. How quickly things change in Internetworld.
Are T3s still faster than most connections?
OC3 and OC12 are the current super-speed ones aren't they?
Score: 0
|Ha. My connection is a TC64, the fastest of all. The data actually travels faster than the speed of light, enabling me to recieve downloads before I actually download them.
Score: 2
|20 Mbps burstable to 1 Gbps at work. It's not all that expensive, either.
We rarely use more than 1 Mbps, even given that. Apple and Microsoft are two public sites I can think of that actually can deliver at those top speeds.
Score: 1
|didn't know that t1's were outdated but hadn't a need to follow that technology anyways.
thanks for the update - all.
Score: 0
|Actually there is a lot of misconception when it comes to internet connections vs Internet pipes (t1, oc3, oc12, etc..). We will use a simple T1 for example. There is no packet loss like you get with your internet connection (cable modem). For a server direct pipes are the way to go. For a end user (who is playing on myspace, games etc..) of course a cable modem is fine. I have a server, and Id NEVER put it on a cable modem.
If your connection says it puts out 20mbps and you have 1,000 people hitting it at once, you going to have a TON of packet loss and your server is going to run as slow as turtle. With a pipe, its meant for that large amount of people at one time, even though it may be slower 1 on 1.
to have a pipe in your house simply to surf the net is stupid.. for a server thats hit hard.. a pipe is the way to go, a standard cable connection would get crushed.
Score: 0
|