Google Chrome 3.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#11

Post by _ck_ » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:03 PM UTC

You know what's still missing and I'm surprised...

there's no way to see raw headers sent/received in the dev tools!

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#12

Post by dagw » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:13 PM UTC

adnymarc wrote: post #3

And still no full release version for Mac / Linux. I find this particularly interesting considering the Google "Operating System" is going to be a custom interface on top of a Linux kernel.

I've been using the Linux version for several month now and honestly cannot tell the difference between it and the windows version. Just as stable, just as fast, and flash works without any problems. I'm guessing there is a good reason why they're not comfortable releasing it yet, but as an end user I haven't run across that reason.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#13

Post by c00p3r » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:16 PM UTC

It is time for next-gen "no flash" browser games and "no java" web-apps.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#14

Post by heycarsten » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:24 PM UTC

I realize there is probably no place for it in marketing banter, but it bothers me that they don't give the WebKit project any visible credit.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#15

Post by buugs » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:31 PM UTC

ScottWhigham wrote: post #2

"You shouldn't read too much into Google Chrome's version numbers. Just because you can now install Google Chrome 3.0, it doesn't mean that Google wants to appear more mature than it already is." * cough(bullshit)

Really they have caught up to firefox without implementing new features.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#16

Post by acdha » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:41 PM UTC

cmalabs wrote: post #8

"Chrome includes video codecs that allow you to embed videos without using slow and unreliable plug-ins like Adobe Flash." Compared to quicktime/media player and the slew of plugins from the previous generation, flash is much much more reliable.

If you want the lowest common quality video, yes. Flash video performance and quality are noticeably lower, though, so it really doesn't scale well beyond YouTube-level video.

In practice, widely deployed beat better quality handily.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#17

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:49 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#18

Post by truebosko » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:57 PM UTC

Awesome! Extensions being enabled by default in the dev channel is great news. I've been semi-following the documentation for it all and it's been improving at a nice steady pace (just like the browser :-))

Also, as mentioned from others it runs just fine on Linux for several months now so go ahead and try it! You'll realize quickly how you don't need all those Firefox extensions.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#19

Post by brodie » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 1:59 PM UTC

_ck_ wrote: post #11

You know what's still missing and I'm surprised... there's no way to see raw headers sent/received in the dev tools!

Is the Resources panel not adequate? Granted, it does format the headers, but it does show the HTTP method, the request headers, and the response headers for the page and each resource.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#20

Post by amackera » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 2:00 PM UTC

heycarsten wrote: post #14

I realize there is probably no place for it in marketing banter, but it bothers me that they don't give the WebKit project any visible credit.

That would steal focus away from Google's promotion of their secret magic sauce that they sprinkle on everything to make it better.